DY Chandrachud, Former CJI.
One Nation One Election Not Unconstitutional, Former CJI DY Chandrachud tells JPC: New Delhi, India – In a high-level, closed-door interaction with the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the “One Nation One Election Bill,” former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud offered a nuanced perspective, stating that while the proposed legislation does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, it contains significant flaws that demand urgent correction. His cautionary remarks focused on the potential for unchecked powers for the Election Commission of India (ECI) and critical constitutional gaps left unaddressed by the Bill.
Sources present during the meeting, which included 38 Members of Parliament and officials from the Parliament Secretariat, revealed that former CJI Chandrachud made it clear that the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, while not fundamentally unconstitutional, requires substantial refinement before it can proceed. Former CJI J.S. Khehar was also invited to present his views before the committee, indicating the depth of consultation on this pivotal legislative proposal.
READ: Don’t Burden Yourself with Loans for Foreign LL.M.: CJI BR Gavai to Law Graduates
Synchronized Polls Not Unconstitutional, Says Chandrachud
Addressing the core premise of the Bill, Chandrachud began by asserting that the concept of simultaneous elections is not inherently in conflict with constitutional principles. He reminded the committee that from 1950 to 1960, elections to the Parliament and State assemblies were indeed held concurrently. He cited the historical precedent of 1957, when several assemblies were dissolved early to align with national elections, demonstrating that such synchronization has a historical basis in India’s democratic journey.
He emphasized that fundamental constitutional tenets such as democracy and federalism do not necessitate asynchronous elections. According to Chandrachud, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates separate election cycles. He explained that under the proposed framework, legislatures elected before a notified date (defined as the first sitting of the newly elected Lok Sabha) would complete their full five-year terms. Only those legislatures elected after the Lok Sabha is constituted would, as a one-time transitional measure, have their terms aligned with Parliament’s tenure. After this initial adjustment, both Parliament and State assemblies would then run independently and parallelly, each for their own five-year terms, unless dissolved earlier under normal democratic circumstances.
Election Commission of India.
READ: Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar Withdraws Consent for Judgeship Amidst Centre’s Inaction
Concerns Raised Over Excessive Powers Granted to ECI
Chandrachud’s sharpest objections, however, were directed at the extensive powers proposed to be conferred upon the Election Commission of India by the Bill. Sources indicated that he specifically flagged two provisions as constitutionally unacceptable:
One provision that allows the ECI to modify provisions of Part XV of the Constitution to implement the Bill.
Another provision that empowers the ECI to postpone elections to any State assembly if simultaneous conduct with the Lok Sabha is deemed infeasible.
He reportedly argued that granting the ECI the authority to alter substantive constitutional provisions or to unilaterally shorten the tenure of elected assemblies through a report to the President cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Drawing a comparison to Article 356(5), which outlines specific mechanisms for State intervention, Chandrachud stressed that any power to defer elections must be clearly defined and strictly limited.
READ: Delhi High Court Upholds Disability Pension for Soldiers, Rejects Centre’s Plea
A Three-Part Solution to Restore Constitutional Balance
To address these critical flaws and restore constitutional balance, Chandrachud is said to have suggested a three-point safeguard:
The ECI should be permitted to delay elections only in situations involving national security or public order.
Any such recommendation for postponement must be ratified by both Houses of Parliament.
Postponements should be allowed only for a fixed, limited period.
Without these crucial guardrails, he reportedly warned, the Bill could lead to an unaccountable and open-ended concentration of power in the hands of the Election Commission, potentially undermining democratic principles.
READ: No Insurance for Legal Heirs if Driver Caused Accident by Rash Driving: Supreme Court
Unaddressed Constitutional Scenarios
Beyond the ECI’s powers, Chandrachud also flagged two major constitutional “silences” that the Bill currently overlooks. The first concerns a National Emergency declared under Article 352, which permits the extension of Parliament and state assembly tenures by one year. The Bill, he noted, does not explain how such extensions would impact the synchronized election cycle. He explained that once an Emergency concludes, the government would face a dilemma: either cut short Parliament’s subsequent term or extend the assemblies’ terms to re-establish synchronicity.
The second unaddressed scenario involves a more common situation: what happens if a State assembly is dissolved six or seven months before its tenure ends due to a loss of majority? The Bill provides no clarity on whether elections can be deferred in such cases to align with Parliament. He highlighted that this situation is not covered by Article 356 and, unless directly addressed in the Bill, could lead to confusion or even misuse.
According to those present, Chandrachud summarized his submission into three broad points:
The fundamental idea of simultaneous elections does not violate the Constitution’s basic structure.
However, the powers proposed for the Election Commission must be revised and significantly limited.
The Bill must explicitly address constitutional silences, particularly in cases of emergency and premature dissolutions of assemblies.
READ: Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud Calls for Tax Overhaul, Urges Ban on Retrospective Amendments
Background of the Bill
In December 2024, the government introduced the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, with the ambitious goal of establishing a framework for holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and local bodies. Shortly thereafter, a Joint Parliamentary Committee was constituted to undertake a detailed examination of the Bill.
The committee comprises 39 members drawn from both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and is chaired by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary. Notable members on the panel include Anurag Thakur, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Tewari, Supriya Sule, and Sambit Patra. The committee has been tasked with thoroughly investigating the legal, constitutional, and administrative issues that would arise from holding all elections across the country concurrently. It has held several rounds of consultations with various experts, including former Chief Justices of India, to assess the practical implications of the Bill and identify any gaps that may need to be addressed before constitutional amendments are finalized.
READ: Bombay High Court Slaps Rs 50,000 Fine on Yes Bank for Insisting on Aadhaar for Opening Bank Account
