Former CJI Flags Alarming Powers for ECI in 'One Nation, One Election' Bill

In a significant development, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has voiced profound constitutional concerns regarding the proposed 'One Nation, One Election' bill. Speaking with a cautionary tone, Justice Khanna pointed out that the bill, in its current form, seems to bestow 'unfettered powers' upon the Election Commission of India (ECI), potentially allowing it to dictate the timing of elections in a manner that could override established parliamentary legislation.

Justice Khanna's primary apprehension revolves around a specific provision within the bill that grants the ECI the authority to conduct general elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies 'as it may deem fit'.

This phrasing, he argued, is deeply problematic as it could be interpreted to supersede foundational electoral laws such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Delimitation Act, 2002. He emphasized that while the ECI enjoys constitutional independence, it fundamentally remains an arm of the executive, and granting such expansive, unchecked power raises serious questions about the delicate balance of power enshrined in the Constitution.

While acknowledging the often-cited benefits of simultaneous elections, such as reduced financial outlay and mitigation of voter fatigue, Justice Khanna stressed that the method of implementation is paramount.

He highlighted that the Indian Constitution meticulously outlines the separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. A bill that potentially undermines parliamentary supremacy by allowing an executive body—even an independent one like the ECI—to unilaterally decide crucial electoral schedules without robust legislative oversight, presents a fundamental challenge to the democratic framework.

The former CJI elucidated that while a degree of flexibility is essential for the ECI to manage the complex electoral process, a provision that empowers it to conduct elections 'as it may deem fit' without clear legislative guidance or limitations is an invitation to constitutional ambiguity and potential overreach.

He underscored that such a broad mandate could inadvertently lead to a situation where the ECI's decisions are not subject to the legislative scrutiny that is characteristic of a parliamentary democracy.

This critical assessment from a jurist of Justice Khanna's stature brings into sharp focus the intricate constitutional challenges embedded within the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal.

It serves as a stark reminder that while electoral reforms are vital, they must be meticulously crafted to uphold the foundational principles of parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers, and the rule of law, ensuring that solutions do not inadvertently create new constitutional dilemmas.