One Nation, One Election: Do States get a say in constitutional amendments? | Explained Premium

As the ‘one nation, one election’ panel is set to examine if a constitutional amendment to facilitate simultaneous polls would have to be ratified by the States, we look at how the constitution is amended and if states get a say in the process

The story so far: The Union government on September 2 set up a committee under the leadership of former President of India Ram Nath Kovind to look into the feasibility of simultaneous polls to State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha. The eight-member High-Level Committee is set to examine the ‘one nation, one election’ idea and make recommendations for holding simultaneous elections in the country.

The members of the committee include Union Home Minister Amit Shah, former Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, former Chairperson of the 15th Finance Commission NK Singh, former Lok Sabha Secretary General Subhash C Kashyap, senior advocate Harish Salve, and former Chief Vigilance Commissioner Sanjay Kothari. Union Minister of Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal shall attend the committee’s meetings as a ‘special invitee’.

Indian National Congress leader in the Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury has however declined to be a part of the committee, calling the exercise a ‘total eyewash’ and saying that the committee’s terms of reference were prepared in a manner so as to guarantee its conclusions.

The Law Ministry has outlined seven terms of reference for the panel; one of them is to examine and recommend if the constitutional amendments required to facilitate simultaneous elections would require ratification by the States.

This has raised concerns since the implementation of such a proposal only through a vote in the Parliament where the union government is in majority, without the consent of the States would have an adverse impact on federalism.

In light of this development, a key question arises— how is the Constitution amended and do States get a say in the process?

The Constitution was envisioned as a living document capable of morphing with the needs of the times. Notably, Jawaharlal Nehru observed in the Constituent Assembly— “While we want this Constitution to be as solid and as permanent a structure as we can make it, nevertheless, there is no permanence in Constitutions. There should be a certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent, you stop a nation’s growth, the growth of a living, vital, organic people.”