Ex-CJIs back joint poll; flag constitutional concerns in One Nation, One Election Bill

Two former Chief Justices of India — Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud told the Joint Committee of Parliament on the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bill that holding simultaneous elections does not breach the Constitution's basic structure. But both warned that several provisions in the Bill, especially those granting sweeping powers to the Election Commission, could face serious legal scrutiny if not redrafted.

In a nearly five-hour-long session July 11, the two former CJIs combed through the Bill clause by clause, also delving into its broader philosophical, legal, and political implications. Their appearance followed earlier submissions from ex-CJIs Ranjan Gogoi and U U Lalit, who had similarly cautioned about potential legal pitfalls in the draft legislation.

Justice Chandrachud reportedly raised concerns about the Bill’s silence on critical situations — such as what happens to simultaneous elections if an emergency is imposed in a state or when an Assembly is dissolved just months before completing its term. He also flagged the risk of legal challenges stemming from vague language and unchecked authority granted to the Election Commission.

According to sources, Justice Chandrachud proposed a redrafting of contentious clauses and even suggested rule-level changes to limit indiscriminate no-confidence motions—a key destabilizer of governments. “There is no minimum guaranteed term in the Constitution,” he said, pointing out that governments must continue to prove their mandate in a functioning parliamentary democracy.

Interestingly, he countered the popular notion that simultaneous elections could erode local issues. He argued the opposite might occur—regional issues like language rights could gain national prominence during synchronized polls.

Justice Khehar, echoing Chandrachud’s legal view, said the Bill’s key clause—Article 82A (1)—merely fixes the appointed date and does not alter the process of elections or tenures. He asserted that aligning Assembly terms with the Lok Sabha does not violate the Constitution, especially when voters are clearly informed that they are electing governments for shorter terms.

Committee chairperson P P Chaudhary described the session as “a golden opportunity for nation-building,” citing Justice Khehar’s remark that the country might not get a similar window again.

However, several questions linger—particularly around the Bill’s gaps on emergency scenarios, tenure overlaps, and whether the electoral framework is ready for such a fundamental shift. Parliamentary proceedings are privileged, but sources indicated that the discussion reflected a cautious consensus: the ONOE idea may be sound in principle but fraught with procedural and legal landmines in its current form.