ONE NATION ONE ELECTION

India lives in several centuries at once,” wrote Amartya Sen. And yet, One Nation One
Election asks her to vote as if she lives in only one.”

Honorable chairperson, respected judges, and my fellow debaters—today I rise to oppose

the motion on One Nation One Election because beneath the polished promises of
efficiency lies a deep erosion of federalism, representation, and real democracy.

Let me begin with a warning from S.Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of
India, who said “One Nation One Election is administratively difficult, constitutionally
questionable, and politically unwise.”

Why? Because this idea demands that we rewrite multiple articles of our Constitution—
Articles 83, 172, 85, and 356—just to synchronize political calendars. It demands
premature dissolutions or undemocratic extensions of state assemblies, violating the basic
structure doctrine upheld in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.

And all of this for what? To save money?

The Law Commission's 2018 report and the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public
Grievances, Law and Justice (2015) both agree: the idea is attractive in theory but highly
impractical and possibly damaging in practice.

Let me ask you: when did democracy become an accounting problem? Is ₹5,000 crore
every five years too much for responsive governance in the world’s largest democracy?

Even Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of our Constitution, warned us that “The price of
liberty is eternal vigilance.” Not scheduled vigilance. Not synchronized vigilance. But
eternal vigilance—state by state, issue by issue, election by election.

Panel, when I argue against One Nation One Election, I don’t just think of electoral
calendars—I think of a grieving father in Manipur whose voice is drowned in a ‘national’
debate. I think of a young woman in Kerala whose local leaders are too tied up in distant,
synchronized polls to respond to her village’s flood crisis. Democracy isn’t a monolith—it’s
a mosaic of many voices, many struggles, many rhythms. ONOE tries to force that mosaic
into one frame, silencing its most fragile colors.
Imagine the year 2034—not of national unity, but of national erasure. Imagine local
elections turned into side-shows, with regional issues smothered by national party
machines. Imagine 600 million Indians being spoken to, not with, because the microphone
is monopolized. Imagine debates that no longer echo in the panchayat halls of Nagaland or
the fisher colonies of Tamil Nadu—but only in TV studios in Delhi.

Democracy isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about attention. And attention, like sunlight,
must fall where it’s needed most, when it’s needed most. ONOE creates a shadow—long,
uniform, and cold. It risks turning our vibrant electoral dance into a single, mechanical
parade. India deserves better than synchronized silence. India deserves voices rising when
they must—not when the calendar demands.

Our opposition has argued that One Nation, One Election will reduce costs, increase the
GDP by 1.5%, improve governance, and attract more investment into the economy.

But there’s one thing I’ve always heard in politics—nothing is smooth, and nothing is
perfect. Especially not when you're resetting the entire electoral system of a country with
1.46 billion people, and comparing it to countries with populations smaller than that of
Delhi.

There are five major challenges that deserve attention:

1. Constitutional and Legal Hurdles

The first requirement for this process is a series of constitutional amendments—Articles

83, 85, 172, 174, and 356. And here's the catch: at least 50% of the states must ratify these
changes.

Now think about it—in a politically diverse and often divided country like India, can this
really happen smoothly?

Are we prepared to force unity by undermining the spirit of federalism enshrined in our
Constitution?

2. Overlapping Central and State Issues

India is not just one nation—as we say: “विविधता भारतस्य भूषणम्” — diversity is the
ornament of India.

It’s a patchwork of states, cultures, languages, and local issues.

Yet under ONOE, national narratives might overshadow regional voices. In fact, when
elections are synchronized, studies show a 77% chance that Indians vote for the same
party at both the Centre and the state.
Example: In 2014, the BJP swept the Lok Sabha elections on a national wave. Later that
year, during the Haryana Assembly elections, local issues like unemployment and farmer
distress were sidelined by the "Modi wave"—and BJP dominated again.

In contrast, Tamil Nadu often rejects national parties in favor of regional ones like DMK
and AIADMK, which focus on local issues like the Kaveri water dispute or the Thoothukudi
copper plant protests.

But under ONOE, such concerns could be drowned out by central narratives like national
security or inflation. Example: In 2019, a centralized campaign by BJP focused on national
security and PM Modi’s image after the Balakot strikes. BJP won 303 seats nationally.

Yet Tamil Nadu and Kerala rejected BJP, as their voters prioritized issues like education,
health, and farmers' distress.

So ask yourself—what happens to the delicate balance of power? Will Tamil Nadu still
resist policies that hurt its farmers?

Will Adivasis in Odisha and Jharkhand still find leaders who speak for them? Or will their
voices be drowned under a roaring, well-funded national campaign?

3. Loss of Accountability Due to Fewer Elections

Frequent elections, while costly, ensure that governments remain accountable throughout
their term.

Take Uttar Pradesh as an example.

Yogi Adityanath won the 2021 Assembly elections. But in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections,
voters expressed their dissatisfaction—BJP dropped from 62 seats in 2019 to just 33.

This shows how voters use elections to express mid-term approval or disapproval.

If elections are held just once in five years, this vital democratic feedback mechanism is
lost.

We might gain efficiency, but we would be compromising accountability.

4. Logistical Impossibility of Synchronizing All Elections

How does the government intend to align over a billion people, 28 states, and hundreds of
local bodies into a single, synchronized electoral calendar?

The answer is vague. Right now, elections across states and the Centre do not align at all.

For example:
Karnataka’s term will end in 2028,

Delhi's will hold election in 2030,

Lok sabha’s term end in 2029

So how on earth do we bring all these onto one calendar?

The proposal mentions that 17 state assemblies will have their terms shortened to align
elections by 2029.

But isn’t this a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution? Is that being justified
merely in the name of expenditure savings?

5. Unexpired Terms & Borrowed Tenures

Under ONOE, it’s proposed that even if a government collapses mid-term, the newly
elected one will only serve the remaining unexpired term, not a full five years.

So ask yourself: Why would such a "borrowed-term" government focus on long-term

reforms? Won’t it simply scramble for political survival?

Will a government with just 1 or 2 years left in power risk bold reforms that benefit people
in the long run? Or will it just try to survive until the next reset?

If that happens—who pays the price?

Us. The people, the progress, and the future of our states.

6.Reduce expenditure

And while proponents of One Nation, One Election argue that it will reduce expenditure,
there are serious concerns that certain costs—especially political, democratic, and
institutional—might actually increase. A NITI Aayog paper supporting this proposal found
that the central government would need to invest over Rs 9,300 crore to procure
additional Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail
(VVPAT) systems.115 Moreover, the requirement for extra security personnel and election
officials to manage the larger-scale simultaneous elections could further escalate
operational costs, raising questions about the financial feasibility of the initiative in its
entirety.

e. Due to the paucity of warehousing facilities, many states and UTs are compelled to store
the EVMs in private buildings and educational institutions. There will be an increased
demand for safe, practical storage facilities with increased number of EVMs. Increased
number of EVMs will require more polling material, polling staff and additional vehicles.
CONCLUSION

So In theory, One Nation, One Election sounds efficient. But in practice, it risks diluting
democracy, marginalizing regional voices, and over-centralizing power in a diverse federal
structure.

India isn't just one nation—it is, in the words of Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore:

"India has ever declared the unity of all races, the unity of all religions."

ONOE threatens to replace that unity with uniformity—a far more dangerous idea in a
country built on coexistence.

According to an IDFC Institute study, in states where simultaneous elections have

occurred, over 75% of voters voted for the same party at both state and national levels.

That’s not just a trend—it’s a clear warning: regional voices risk being subsumed under
national narratives.

As Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman once stated:

“Federalism is not a matter of administrative convenience, but one of principle.”

And what are we doing now? Trying to force all of India—from Ladakh to Lakshadweep,
from Mizoram to Maharashtra—onto a single electoral calendar, as if their issues are the
same, their needs identical.

Let us ask: Is democracy merely a question of cost-saving? Or is it about representation,

accountability, and empowerment?

India’s electoral diversity is not a bug—it is a feature, a hallmark of how deeply democracy
runs in our soil.

Let us not abandon that richness in the name of uniformity.

As the Rigveda beautifully says:

"एकोऽहम् बहुस्याम्" – Let me be one, and become many.

India’s strength has always been in its "many"—many cultures, many voices, many
choices.

Let us not erase that strength for the illusion of simplicity.

Because democracy is not about saving money—

It’s about ensuring that every voice, no matter how small, is heard.