The Ministry underscored that simultaneous elections aim at reducing the frequency of polls and associated expenditure.
| Photo Credit: ANI
The Union Law Ministry, in a written submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Bills on simultaneous elections, said that the proposed framework does not violate the Constitution’s basic structure, nor does it infringe upon the federal structure of the Constitution.
The JPC, headed by senior BJP leader P.P. Chaudhary will be meeting representatives from the 23rd Law Commission and the Election Commission on December 4. The Law Ministry, which has already submitted replies to the questions posed by the panel, will be appearing at a later meeting. The Law Commission has submitted a report running 100 pages, making arguments similar to that of the Law Ministry.
Responding to queries on whether curtailing the tenure of a government undermines the voter’s right to elect a government for five years, the Ministry said Articles 83(2) and 172(1) of the Constitution explicitly provide that the term of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies shall be five years “unless sooner dissolved.” This phrase, the Ministry argued, was deliberately incorporated by the framers to allow for premature dissolution under certain circumstances.
“The five-year tenure is neither sacrosanct nor part of the basic structure,” the Ministry noted, citing historical precedent. It pointed out that the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) made during the 19-month Emergency imposed by the Indira Gandhi government extended the tenure of legislatures to six years, which was later restored to five years through the 44th Amendment.
“If the tenure could be extended by Constitutional Amendment, a one-time curtailment to synchronise elections cannot be said to violate the basic structure,” the Ministry said.
On concerns that the proposed legislation may run afoul of the Supreme Court’s landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment which spoke of the basic structure doctrine, the Ministry maintained that the Bills do not erode the principle of separation of powers or federalism. The basic structure doctrine demands that certain fundamental features of the Constitution — such as separation of powers between the organs of the State, namely, legislature, the executive and the judiciary — are a part of the basic structure of the constitution and cannot be amended.
On mid-term elections
“Mid-term elections do not limit the plenary power of the electorate to elect representatives. The right to vote and contest elections, while secured under Article 326, are not fundamental rights,” it clarified.
The Ministry also addressed apprehensions about the federal character of the Constitution. Leaning on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s observations during the Constituent Assembly debates, it said the Constitution was designed to be flexible. It is federal under normal conditions and unitary during emergencies. “Synchronisation of elections through Constitutional Amendment does not disturb this balance,” the Ministry asserted, citing multiple Supreme Court rulings to support its position.
On the question of whether the Election Commission would wield excessive powers under the new framework, the Ministry said the Commission already enjoys autonomy under Article 324 and has the authority to schedule elections under Sections 14 and 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. “The EC will continue to exercise superintendence, direction and control over elections. In exceptional circumstances, if polls cannot be held, the Commission may recommend deferment to the President, who can act accordingly,” the Ministry explained.
The Ministry underscored that simultaneous elections aim to reduce the frequency of polls and associated expenditure without compromising constitutional principles. “Technically, no Lok Sabha has completed a full five-year term as fresh elections are held before expiry,” it observed, adding that mid-term polls have occurred seven times since Independence.
It has further argued, citing the Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) Supreme Court judgment, that the right to vote, though fundamental to democracy, is not a fundamental right but a Constitutional and a legal, statutory right. The Representation of the People Act 1951, the Law Ministry said, lays down conditions to disqualify a voter for reasons such as “non-citizenship”, “unsoundness of mind as declared by a competent court”, “guilty of corrupt practices”, and other electoral offences.
Published – November 28, 2025 04:36 am IST
