Nagaland chief minister and leader of the House, Dr. Neiphiu Rio, told the house at its concluding day, that since the “One Nation One Election” (ONOE) Bill is being reviewed by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, it would be improper to make any further comments on the matter.
He was responding to various points raised against ONOE by NPF MLA Achumbemo Kikon, during a discussion on matters of urgent public importance under Rule 54 on Saturday.
The chief minister provided a brief background of the 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which aims to introduce the “One Nation One Election” concept in India, as introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 17, 2024.
Rio noted that simultaneous elections were standard practice from the first General Election in 1951 until 1967. However, early dissolutions of state assemblies after 1967 led to staggered polls for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Various reports from the Election Commission (1983), Law Commission (1999), and Niti Aayog (2017) have proposed reviving the system.
He said that the Bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons highlights several advantages, including reducing election-related expenses, minimizing disruptions caused by the Model Code of Conduct, preventing governance delays, and ensuring administrative efficiency.
If passed, Dr. Rio said that the Bill would outline the following steps– Presidential Notification: The President will declare an “appointed date” for the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after a general election.
Fixed Tenure: The Lok Sabha’s term will be five years from the appointed date.
Alignment of State Assembly Terms: All State Legislative Assemblies elected after the appointed date will have terms aligned with the Lok Sabha.
Simultaneous General Elections: Future elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies will be held together.
Dissolution Clause: If the Lok Sabha or a State Assembly is dissolved before completing its term, the new House will serve only the remaining period.
Rio noted that if the Bill is passed during the 18th Lok Sabha (2024–2029), the appointed date would likely be around May-June 2029. The 19th Lok Sabha would serve from 2029 to 2034.
The tenure of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly would also be synchronized, meaning the 16th Nagaland Legislative Assembly’s tenure (2033-2038) would be curtailed to match the Lok Sabha’s tenure, resulting in a shorter duration of around 14–15 months.
NPF MLA opposes ‘ONOE’
Earlier, making a fervent appeal against ONOE, NPF legislator Achumbemo Kikon said he strongly opposed the proposal and cited several concerns, including its impact on India’s federal structure. He argued that the ONOE concept undermined India’s democratic and federal framework on the ground that India is a union of states with diverse socio-political and cultural backgrounds. Thus, synchronizing elections at the national and state levels would dilute regional issues and hinder the autonomy of states, he said.
Kikon maintained that regional parties play a crucial role in addressing state-specific concerns, especially in regions with distinct identities, such as Nagaland. In this regard, he said ONOE could lead to national parties overshadowing local concerns, marginalizing regional political aspirations.
He also noted that conducting simultaneous elections in geographically challenging states like Nagaland would place an undue burden on administrative resources, including election officials and security forces.
The argument that ONOE will significantly reduce election expenditures is misleading, he said, adding that election-related costs currently amount to approximately 0.33% of India’s GDP, which is manageable for a country with a GDP of Rs. 300 lakh crore.
Instead of ONOE,Kikon argued, reforms should focus on stricter regulations on campaign expenditures and amendments to the Representation of the People Act.
Kikon also warned that implementing ONOE could have serious consequences for Indian democracy.
He pointed out that the BJP, after securing a third consecutive term, was pushing ONOE with renewed vigor. However, he cautioned that if simultaneous elections had continued since the 1950s, the BJP might have remained a marginal player in Indian politics. The emergence of regional parties was facilitated by the breakdown of simultaneous elections, enabling greater political representation across India.
He highlighted that India transitioned into the “Coalition Era” after the Congress party’s dominance waned, allowing regional parties to gain ground. The BJP, which originally evolved from the Jana Sangh, benefited from this political transformation and grew into a formidable force. Kikon argued that dismantling the current electoral framework through ONOE could disrupt this balance and weaken regional voices.
Kikon expressed firmly opposition to ONOE and urged upon the House to thoroughly deliberate the matter before any legislative decision is taken. He emphasized that India’s electoral diversity and federal structure must be preserved to ensure democratic inclusivity and regional representation.