one-nation-one-election-jpc-meeting-scheduled-for-jan-8

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) will hold its meeting on the contentious ‘One Nation, One Election’ initiative on January 8. The proposed measure seeks to synchronise elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, sparking significant debate across political circles.

 

Congress leader Salman Khurshid acknowledged the complexities of implementing the proposal, stressing that it is far from straightforward. He stated that the JPC will deliberate on all issues tied to the proposal, ensuring every concern is placed on the table for comprehensive discussion.

 

Opposition to the proposal has been strong, particularly from the Left parties, who see it as an affront to India’s federal structure. Leaders from the Communist Party of India, CPI(M), CPI(ML) Liberation, Revolutionary Socialist Party, and All India Forward Bloc convened in New Delhi recently to voice their concerns.

 

In a joint statement, they criticised the proposed constitutional amendments as a move towards centralisation, potentially undermining the rights of state legislatures and the electorate.

 

They also raised concerns about the arbitrary shortening of the five-year terms of state assemblies, warning that such changes could erode the democratic process.

 

The bill, already introduced in the Lok Sabha, proposes simultaneous elections nationwide, aiming to streamline the electoral process.

 

The JPC, comprising 31 members, including prominent leaders from both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, will now scrutinise the bill.

 

Key members include Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Manish Tewari, NCP’s Supriya Sule, TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee, and BJP representatives PP Chaudhary, Bansuri Swaraj, and Anurag Singh Thakur.

 

Opposition leaders argue that the proposed system could disproportionately favour the ruling party, enabling it to exert excessive influence over state-level electoral processes.

 

Regional parties, which often depend on state-level autonomy, fear their influence could be diminished under the new system.

 

Supporters of the proposal argue that it would reduce election-related expenses and streamline governance by minimising disruptions caused by frequent elections. However, critics maintain that this approach risks prioritising administrative convenience over democratic principles.