'One Nation, One Election' vs the federal compact

Question (10 marks, ~150 words):

'One Nation, One Election' promises administrative efficiency but raises serious concerns for India's federal structure. Critically examine.

Introduction: India held simultaneous elections from 1951 to 1967, until premature dissolutions broke the cycle; the Ram Nath Kovind High-Level Committee (2024) revived One Nation, One Election (ONOE), recommending phased synchronisation of the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and later local bodies. It must be weighed — efficiency against federal cost.

Arguments in favour (efficiency):

• Frequent elections cost thousands of crores and repeatedly divert security and administrative machinery.
• Recurring Model Code of Conduct freezes stall welfare delivery and governance.
• Synchronised polls curb "permanent campaign mode," freeing governments for long-term policy.

Federal & democratic concerns:

• Subordinates State Assembly cycles to the Union's, eroding autonomy and delinking a State's mandate from its own voters.
• National issues and better-resourced national parties can eclipse State-specific concerns, hurting regional parties.
• Fixing terms despite a lost majority weakens accountability.

Practical hurdles:

• Needs amending Articles 83, 85, 172, 174 and 356, plus a fix for mid-term collapse — e.g. Germany's "constructive vote of no-confidence."
• Disputes over roll revision (SIR) and Form 17C transparency show trust in the process, not just its timing, is central.

Way forward:

• Proceed only through broad constitutional consensus that safeguards States' fixed terms.
• Strengthen ECI transparency and credibility before any rollout.

Conclusion: The gains are largely administrative while the costs are structural and democratic — efficiency must reinforce, not subordinate, India's federal balance.