Ex-CJI Chandrachud backs One Nation, One Election; opposes wide powers given to Election Commission

Mangalore Today News Network

New Delhi, June 27, 2025: Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has submitted his views on ‘One Nation, One Election’ to a Parliamentary panel in which he has dismissed arguments that the Bill to amend the Constitution for enabling simultaneous polls violates basic structure doctrine, sources said.

However, sources said, he was opposed to undefined and wide powers given to the Election Commission, including powers to delink election in a state, in the Bills tabled in Lok Sabha. Though not part of the Bill, he also opposed suggestions for a no-confidence motion to be contingent on a trust vote.

Justice Chandrachud, who is learnt to have submitted a detailed note in April this year, former Chief Justice J Kehar and former Ministers M Veerappa Moily and E M Sudarsana Natchiappan have been called by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on ‘ONOE’ Bills for interactions on July 11.

Sources said Justice Chandrachud has argued in the detailed note that free and fair elections is a basic feature of the Constitution but it does not say that free and fair elections can only be achieved if the elections are held non-simultaneously.
Simultaneous polls “does not infringe” upon the right of voters to choose their elected representatives, sources quoted from his note to the panel headed by senior BJP MP P P Chaudhary examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.

He said the Bill ensures that the electorate remains represented even when the Lok Sabha or Assembly is dissolved, as there is provision for a mid-term poll.

“The arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is ‘naive’ and can be easily ‘manipulated’...Universal adult franchise has been and continues to be an abiding Constitutional commitment...An unverified hypothesis of the kind referred to above cannot displace this Constitutional premise,” he said.

Dismissing suggestions that people voted differently in national and state elections, Justice Chandrachud said people might vote for national election on local issues because they wish for their local and state interests to be represented at the national level.

He also argued that the Constitution, in its original form, did not mandate that Lok Sabha and Assembly elections be held separately. “Therefore, the argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution’s basic structure…does not hold,” he said.

Justice Chandrachud also did not find merit in the argument that regional parties may be impacted as it does not have financial resources matching the national parties. According to him, the issue is independent of the proposal to simultaneous polls and it could be addressed by filling the gap in regulations related to campaign finances.

In what is seen as supporting the provision of curtailing the tenure of some Assemblies to synchronise elections, he said it will be known to the electorate unlike in the instance of premature dissolution of Assemblies as of now and the extension of tenure as seen during Emergency.