Simultaneous polls panel weighs bar on no-confidence motions in final year of government’s term

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Bill on simultaneous elections is considering a provision that would bar the introduction of a no-confidence motion against an incumbent government if only one year of its term remains, committee chairperson and BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary said on Wednesday (February 18, 2026).

He was speaking at The Hindu Mind, a conversation series featuring leading newsmakers.

The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 enabling simultaneous elections was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 17, 2024, and immediately referred to the committee. The panel has held 16 meetings in Delhi so far and travelled across the country, with six former Chief Justices of India sharing their views on the legislation.

Appointed date

Explaining key provisions of the Bill, Mr. Chaudhary said that if enacted before the 2029 general elections, the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha would become the “appointed date.” State Assembly terms beginning thereafter would be truncated to align with the 2034 Lok Sabha polls. This one-time synchronisation, he argued, would not violate the federal structure, contrary to the concerns raised by critics.

The pros and cons of simultaneous elections | Explained

Mr. Chaudhary said the panel was deliberating whether to introduce a time bar on moving a no-confidence motion. “We are actively considering introducing a provision that would bar the moving of a no-confidence motion if the incumbent government has only one year left in its term,” he said, noting that several States had similar restrictions for Panchayati Raj institutions.

However, such provisions vary widely across States. Under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, for instance, a no-confidence motion cannot be moved in the last year of the term against certain panchayat office-bearers. In contrast, the Karnataka High Court ruled on February 9 that there should be no embargo on moving a no-confidence motion in the final year, emphasising the need to prevent misuse of office during the remaining tenure.

“When grassroots democracy has such a provision, why can’t we adopt it for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies?” Mr. Chaudhary asked.

While Mr. Chaudhary maintained that such a restriction was legally plausible, he acknowledged that the final decision must be a political one. “We will also consult the political parties on the issue,” he added.

‘Addressing the gaps’

Mr. Chaudhary conceded that there were infirmities in the current formulation of the Bill, and noted that addressing these gaps was precisely what the panel was attempting to do. For instance, during the deliberations so far, several members had pointed out that the Election Commission had been vested with unfettered powers under the proposed law.

Section 82 A(5) of the new Bill states that “if the Election Commission is of the opinion that the elections to any Legislative Assembly cannot be conducted along with the general election to the House of the People, it may make a recommendation to the President, to declare by an order, that the election to that Legislative Assembly may be conducted at a later date.” Members argued that by not specifying a deadline for the Election Commission, the provision effectively grants the poll panel “arbitrary and unregulated powers.”

This apprehension, Mr. Chaudhary acknowledged, was valid, and the panel was deliberating on how to alter the clause. “Prima facie, I am also of the view that the apprehension is correct and we will have to think about it,” the BJP MP said, adding that it was ultimately for the members to decide on the matter.

The panel, he said, could consider introducing an oversight mechanism. At the same time, he emphasised that the Election Commission was a constitutional body, and there was no reason to distrust its intentions or functioning.