The Joint Parliamentary Committee on ‘One Nation One Election’ on Friday held a meeting at Parliament House in New Delhi.
JAIPUR — Chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on One Nation, One Election and BJP MP, P.P. Chaudhary, said on Saturday that the overall response to the discussions and deliberations undertaken by the committee for the implementation of the new elections reforms indicates that the country is ready to seriously consider it in the national interest.
He claimed that as the Chairperson of the Committee, he can affirm that the proposal for One Nation, One Election has generated constructive and wide-ranging engagement across the country.
He emphasised that the expert consensus emerging is that the idea is both constitutionally permissible and operationally feasible, provided it is implemented with appropriate safeguards, which is precisely what this Committee is working towards.
“We intend to undertake the most comprehensive and inclusive deliberation possible, and therefore, we aim to cover all states and union territories,” Chaudhary told IANS in an exclusive interview.
The Joint Parliamentary Committee on ‘One Nation One Election’ on Friday held a meeting at Parliament House in New Delhi.
Interview excerpts:
What kind of feedback is being received on ‘One Nation, One Election’ across the country?
PP Chaudhary: As Chairperson of the Committee, I can affirm that the proposal for One Nation, One Election has generated constructive and wide-ranging engagement across the country. We have received feedback from a broad spectrum of stakeholders like legal experts, political parties, civil society organisations, Public Sector Undertakings, state governments, and citizens. There is a growing recognition of the tangible benefits: reduced election expenditure, enhanced policy continuity, and a governance ecosystem free from perpetual campaign cycles. While some questions have been raised, particularly on implementation mechanics, the overall response indicates that the country is ready to seriously consider this reform in the national interest.
The committee has been speaking to legal experts and jurists. What are the major concerns?
We’ve had the privilege of consulting some of the most respected legal and constitutional minds in the country. While federalism and constitutional structure were flagged as theoretical concerns, it is significant that many former Chief Justices and senior jurists have categorically stated that the proposal does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. They have highlighted existing constitutional provisions that allow for synchronisation within a well-defined legal framework.
The expert consensus emerging is that the idea is both constitutionally permissible and operationally feasible, provided it is implemented with appropriate safeguards, which is precisely what this Committee is working towards.
Study tours have been organised only in a few states. Are there more states in the pipeline? Has there been a deadline for when the study tours will finish?
So far, the Committee has undertaken two study tours, covering a few states and one union territory – namely Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Chandigarh. During these visits, we engaged extensively with state administrations, chambers of commerce, legal scholars, and civil society to understand the ground-level feasibility of simultaneous elections.
Notably, Chief Ministers, Deputy Chief Ministers, and Speakers of Legislative Assemblies have appeared before the Committee to share their views, marking an unprecedented level of state-level engagement in the history of parliamentary committees. We intend to undertake the most comprehensive and inclusive deliberation possible, and therefore, we aim to cover all states and union territories. Given the scale and seriousness of this exercise, these deliberations are expected to span approximately two to two and a half years.
Any special concerns that you think should be discussed? For example, some reports suggest the Election Commission shouldn’t be given sweeping powers.
The Committee has engaged in a holistic and clause-by-clause scrutiny of the proposed Bills, and naturally, certain concerns have been flagged. Let me reiterate that the Committee’s mandate is to examine all legal and constitutional aspects and to propose necessary improvements that address such concerns.
What’s the way forward for these concerns?
All concerns received by the Committee, whether legal, operational, or constitutional, will be discussed in detail, with inputs from relevant stakeholders and experts. The Committee is committed to a consultative, evidence-based process, and the outcome of this rigorous exercise will be reflected in the final report that is submitted to Parliament. We aim to ensure that the proposed framework is robust, inclusive, and in consonance with the principles of our Constitution.
