Six former CJIs said simultaneous elections won't undermine federalism, Constitution: JPC chief
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 was told that six former Chief Justices of India, in their interactions with the panel, held that the proposal for simultaneous elections does not violate the Constitution's basic structure, federalism, or fundamental rights
The JPC chairperson stated that the panel had also received supportive assessments from a set of economists, who argued that synchronising Lok Sabha and State Assembly election cycles could improve macroeconomic outcomes by reducing the disruption caused by frequent polls
The committee continued its nationwide consultation process, gathering views from legal experts, economists, and state-level stakeholders to inform its report on the Bill
Some of the former Chief Justices who appeared before the panel separately flagged concerns about the scope of powers proposed to be vested in the Election Commission of India under the Bill, even while endorsing its overall constitutionality
The Basic Structure Doctrine and Federalism
The basic structure doctrine originates from the Supreme Court's ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), decided by a 13-judge bench on a 7:6 majority, which held that Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution does not extend to altering or destroying its "basic structure." Federalism — the division of legislative, administrative, and financial powers between the Union and the States — has been repeatedly affirmed as a basic feature, notably in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), which also linked it to free and fair periodic elections as an essential democratic safeguard.
Key Details
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): established that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review if they damage the "basic structure," though the Constitution does not enumerate what constitutes it
- Recognised basic features include: supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, secularism, and federalism
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) reinforced federalism as a basic feature while adjudicating on the misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule)
- The argument before the JPC was that because the Constitution does not itself mandate staggered elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, synchronising them does not touch the federal basic structure — only the timing of elections, not the distribution of powers between Centre and States
The former CJIs' assessment addresses the central constitutional objection to the 129th Amendment Bill — that curtailing or extending State Assembly terms to align with the Lok Sabha undermines State autonomy — by distinguishing "electoral synchronisation" from "federal structure."
Article 82A and the Election Commission's Expanded Powers
The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes inserting Article 82A, under which the President notifies an "appointed date" after a Lok Sabha general election from which all State Assembly terms would end concurrently with the Lok Sabha's five-year term. Article 82A(3) empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct simultaneous general elections to the Lok Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies, while Article 82A(5) allows the ECI to recommend deferring a particular State's Assembly election to a separate date if simultaneous polling is deemed impractical, subject to the President's order.
Key Details
- The ECI's power under Article 82A(5) to recommend deferral — and its role in effectively determining when a "mid-term" State Assembly's curtailed or extended term would run — was the specific concern raised by former CJIs even as they found no basic-structure violation
- The Bill also proposes amending Article 327 to bring "conduct of simultaneous elections" within the ambit of parliamentary law-making power on State legislature elections
- The Election Commission is a permanent constitutional body under Article 324, headed by the Chief Election Commissioner along with other Election Commissioners; its core mandate is superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President
While the "no federalism violation" finding addresses one objection to the Bill, the parallel concern about unguided ECI discretion over deferral and term alignment remains a live issue the JPC is expected to weigh in its final report.
Amending the Constitution: Article 368 and the JPC as a Scrutiny Mechanism
A Constitution Amendment Bill of this nature requires passage by a special majority under Article 368 — a majority of the total membership of each House, and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, in each House separately. A Joint Parliamentary Committee is an ad hoc body constituted by both Houses to scrutinise a specific bill in depth, gathering expert and public opinion before the bill returns to Parliament for passage — distinct from a Select Committee (single House) or permanent Department-Related Standing Committees.
Key Details
- Economists' assessments cited before the JPC referenced an estimated economic loss of roughly Rs 7 lakh crore attributed to the recurring disruption of frequent, staggered elections, alongside projected efficiency gains for governance
- The JPC has heard from multiple former Chief Justices of India, legal experts, and former Election Commission officials as part of its consultation process
- The JPC's report will feed into the Bill's eventual passage requirement of special majority in both Houses of Parliament
The combination of constitutional (basic structure), institutional (ECI powers), and economic (cost of frequent elections) assessments gathered by the JPC together form the evidentiary basis on which its final recommendations to Parliament will rest.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala decided 1973, by a 13-judge Supreme Court bench, 7:6 majority — origin of the basic structure doctrine
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) reaffirmed federalism as a basic feature of the Constitution
- Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes inserting Article 82A and amending Article 327
- Constitutional amendments require special majority under Article 368: majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting, in each House
- Estimated economic loss cited from non-simultaneous elections: approximately Rs 7 lakh crore
- Multiple former Chief Justices of India have appeared before the JPC on the 129th Amendment Bill, alongside legal experts and economists, as part of its nationwide consultation process