The Narendra Modi cabinet has accepted in principle the recommendation of the high level committee headed by former President Ramnath Kovind for conduct of simultaneous elections in both the states and at the centre. Very strangely, the building of consensus which should have preceded the finalisation of the report and its acceptance by the government of India is sought to be fostered by the Modi government for the purpose of implementing it. What has been done is like putting the cart before the horse.
Had B.R. Ambedkar been alive he would have found it unacceptable that a former president of India is chairing the aforementioned committee and recommending conduct of elections to the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies on a concurrent basis by factoring deceptive grounds, among others, such as of cutting costs, voter fatigue, improving administrative convenience, protecting social harmony and stimulating economic development.
He would have expressed grave concern that its executive summary and list of recommendations while justifying simultaneous polls by taking into account only economic and administrative reasons, does not explain how such elections would enhance the already rapidly falling standards of the government’s accountability to legislature.
Ambedkar would have recalled his explanations in the constituent assembly that the framers of the constitution preferred very consciously a parliamentary form of government for India because it is based on the accountability of the executive to the legislature on a continuous basis. He had then proceeded to add that in contrast to the parliamentary system the presidential form of government is anchored in the stability of the executive for a prescribed fixed years without in any way making it answerable to the legislature.
Also read: One Nation, One Election, One Party, One Leader: Modi’s Plan Must Be Nipped Deep in the Bud
While famously stating that by adopting parliamentary democracy India preferred accountability to stability he had referred to numerous procedural devices of parliament enabling members of legislatures, among others, to ask questions, call the attention of ministers on issues of urgent public importance and move several motions including a no-confidence motion to make the government of the day responsible to the legislature.
It is rather shocking that a member of the committee, Subhash Kashyap in his paper “Constitutional Foundation of One Nation, One Election,” submitted to the committee made a perverse claim that, “India’s Constitution… is a combination of presidential and parliamentary forms of government.” This is contrary to the aforementioned vision of Ambedkar upholding responsibility which is integral to the parliamentary system.
It is well documented that during the last ten years the accountability of the Union government to the parliament has rapidly declined due to the Modi government’s sheer unwillingness to subject the bills to the deliberative and consultative process for the purpose of enacting them.
Some glaring examples were the farm laws which were framed initially as bills without consulting the farmers and passed in both the houses of parliament without adequate discussion and that too on the basis of voice vote and by not acceding to the demands of some Rajya Sabha members for actual voting as prescribed by the constitution. The shocking decision of the Modi government not to examine most of the bills during 2014 and 2024 in the department related parliamentary committees of parliament was a clear and sinister example of negating their bipartisan scrutiny and examination which form an integral part of the accountability of the government to the legislature.
It is very intriguing that the Kovind committee on simultaneous elections has never explained how the scheme of one nation, one election would deepen the government’s accountability to the legislature and address its accelerating falling standards.
When I searched for any recommendations of the committee to ascertain how concurrent elections to the parliament and state assemblies would scale up the responsibility of the government to legislature I found not a single recommendation devoted to the issue. Certainly, Ambedkar would have been crestfallen to see this very defining feature parliamentary democracy ignored, even snubbed by a high level committee chaired by a former president of India who while assuming the highest office of our Republic took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.
It is not that none of the distinguished persons whose consultation was sought by the committee did not flag the issue of accountability of the government to the legislature. For instance in chapter three under the caption “Consultation Process” the report refers to former Chief Justice of the Delhi high court, Justice Ajit Prakash Shah who, opposed simultaneous elections which he said would “hinder political accountability, as fixed terms offer representatives unwarranted stability without performance scrutiny, challenging democratic principles”.
Justice Ramesh D. Dhanuka, former chief justice, Bombay high court, during his interactions while supporting simultaneous elections “cautioned against overshadowing regional parties and raised concerns about reduced political accountability without frequent state elections and the consequent political pressures”.
Those two examples make it clear that the committee was sensitised about the danger of erosion of accountability arising out of the conduct of concurrent elections which is rooted in the idea of fixed term legislatures.
Also read: One Nation, One Election: Cabinet Nod to Kovind Panel Report, No Timeline on Rollout Yet
The committee report pins the blame on no-confidence motion, a procedural device to hold the government responsible to legislature, for the conduct of frequent elections because the passage of such motions on the floor of the legislative bodies lead to their premature dissolutions.
Paradoxically it elsewhere observes that “making a motion of no confidence by the members of the parliament is not only their right, but also their responsibility” and it expresses its unwillingness not to dilute this feature of the Indian parliamentary system. Such a contradictory stand of the committee is quite baffling.
It refers to the former secretary general of Lok Sabha Subhash C. Kashyap who suggested that the rule concerning no-confidence motion in the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Lok Sabha should be amended to provide for constructive vote of no-confidence which, according to him, implies that the motion which expresses lack of confidence in then government also names the alternative leader of the new government.
While claiming that such a measure would reinforce the idea of continued executive responsibility and accountability to the legislature he stated that it would require no amendment of the constitution and can be done by changing the rules of the houses regarding the admissibility of no-confidence motions. This is a sensible suggestion which Kashyap borrowed from the German constitution.
In spite of such concerns expressed for upholding the core feature of parliamentary democracy, the accountability of the executive to the legislature, the Kovind report’s recommendations are completely silent about it. While factoring numerous issues such as cost cutting measures and administrative efficiency to recommend holding of simultaneous elections the report very wilfully ignores the adverse impacts such elections would spell out on the government’s accountability to the legislature. In doing so the Kovind committee report offends the vision of Ambedkar and negates the very basis of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, it deserves to be rejected in toto.
S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to former President K.R. Narayanan.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.
