Does India need simultaneous elections?

• Law Commission comprehensive report
• 21st Law Commission
• Implementation of simultaneous elections
• Model Code of Conduct (MCC)
• Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice’s report
• Chief Election Commissioner

• In 2018, the Law Commission presented a comprehensive report in support of the concept of simultaneous elections
• The report proposed that such an approach would yield several benefits, including cost savings for the public, alleviation of strain on administrative structures and security forces, enhanced efficacy in the implementation of governmental policies, and the ability for the administrative machinery of the nation to remain consistently focused on developmental efforts, rather than being consumed by electoral campaigns
• Nevertheless, it is important to note that the feasibility of conducting simultaneous elections is hindered by the current constitutional framework
• This necessitates the requirement for amendments in no fewer than five Articles of the Constitution, namely Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356
• According to the draft report of the 21st Law Commission, they have expressed their conviction regarding the feasibility of conducting simultaneous elections for both the House of the People and the State Legislatures
•  Simultaneous elections are often considered a potential solution to address the issue of the country being in a perpetual state of election mode

• The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice’s report from 2015 titled ‘Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections to House of People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies 
• According to the report, the implementation of simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and state assemblies would lead to several benefits
• These include a reduction in the significant costs associated with conducting separate elections, the avoidance of policy paralysis caused by the Model Code of Conduct during election periods, minimised disruption to the delivery of essential services, and a decrease in the strain on manpower resources during election time
• Article 83 (2), which speaks about the duration, states that the Lok Sabha “unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years…” Same phraseology is applied for state assemblies vide Article 172

• The Law Commission of India in its report of 1999 has dealt with the problem of premature and frequent elections
• It had recommended an amendment of this rule on the lines of the German Constitution, which provides that the leader of the party who wants to replace the chancellor has to move the no-confidence motion along with the confidence motion.
• If the motions succeed, the president appoints him as the chancellor
•  If such an amendment to Rule 198 is made, the Lok Sabha would avoid premature dissolution without diluting the cardinal principle of democracy, that is a government with the consent of the peoples’ representatives with periodical elections