ONOE Bills tabled in LS

Highlights

After 269 MPs voted in its favour and 198 against it in the Lok Sabha, Union Law minister Arjun Meghwal on Tuesday introduced two Bills aimed at conducting simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, as part of the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) initiative, which sparked strong Opposition protests.

New Delhi: After 269 MPs voted in its favour and 198 against it in the Lok Sabha, Union Law minister Arjun Meghwal on Tuesday introduced two Bills aimed at conducting simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, as part of the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) initiative, which sparked strong Opposition protests.

The Opposition parties criticised the Bills as an attack on federalism, while the government asserted that the Bills were in line with the Constitution.

"ONOE Bills are in line with Constitution, do not assault basic structure doctrine. Objections to ONOE Bills political in nature," stated the Law minister.

The Opposition demanded immediate withdrawal of the Bills, labelling them as an assault on the Constitution and an attempt to 'kill democracy and bring authoritarianism and dictatorship.'

Ahead of the introduction of the Bills, the Congress had made its opposition to the proposed amendment clear, saying it was unconstitutional. Party leader Jairam Ramesh said, “The Congress firmly, totally, comprehensively rejects the One Nation, One Election Bill. We will oppose its introduction. We will demand its reference to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. We believe it is unconstitutional. We believe it goes against the basic structure, and it is meant to throttle democracy and accountability in this country.”

Ramesh said Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge had written to former President Ram Nath Kovind – who helmed the ONOE panel — on January 17 on why the Congress was against the idea. “The One Nation, One Election Bill is only the first milestone, the real objective is to bring a new Constitution. Amending the Constitution is one thing but bringing a new Constitution is the real objective of the RSS and PM (Narendra) Modi,” he said.

Among others, Congress’s Manish Tewari and Kanimozhi of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) had given notices opposing the introduction of the Bill. Initiating the discussion in the House, Tewari said the Bill was beyond the 7th Schedule of the Constitution and the Basic Structure doctrine.

Samajwadi Party’s Dharmendra Yadav also opposed it, saying it would lead to dictatorship, while Kalyan Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress said state governments and legislative Assemblies are not subordinate to the Centre. Other opposing parties included the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi opposed the legislation, stating it would eliminate regional parties. “This is aimed at maximising political gains to a certain party and will pave the way for a presidential form of government,” he said.

However, ally Telugu Desam Party (TDP) assured the House of its ‘unwavering support’ for the proposed Bills.

The Bills were drafted as per the recommendations of the high-level committee chaired by Kovind, which was appointed by the Law Ministry on September 2, 2023, to suggest ways and amendments to enable simultaneous elections. Of the 47 parties that submitted their opinion on the matter to the Kovind panel, 32 supported the idea and 15 opposed it.

As per the draft, the President would have to notify an “appointed date” on the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after a general election, and any Legislative Assembly elected after that date would have its term curtailed to end with that of the Lok Sabha.

Meanwhile, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had suggested sending the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for thorough examination. “When the One Nation, One Election Bill was taken up in the Cabinet for approval, the PM had said that it should be sent to the JPC for detailed discussion. If the Law minister is willing to send the Bill to JPC, the discussion on its introduction can end,” Shah said.