Salve spurns ONOE criticism

Highlights

Two Bills that lay down the mechanism to hold simultaneous elections were introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday raised some fundamental questions.

New Delhi: Two Bills that lay down the mechanism to hold simultaneous elections were introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday raised some fundamental questions. The Opposition claimed it undermines the democratic process and as a “reset button” on democracy, Some said it was an attack on basic structure of the Constitution. Some felt it affects separation of powers and secular character. Others felt it would alter the supremacy of the Constitution.

While Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal rebutted this saying that the objections were political in nature, the legal luminary Harish Salve who is also the member of the drafting committee of ONOE headed by former President Ramnath Kovind said the Opposition arguments were one-liner arguments.

He said the members should have read the Constitution which they keep flashing every day before claiming that it affects separation of power. He said separation of power means powers of judiciary, powers of legislature, subjects that fall in state list and Union list, etc. None of them have been curtailed in the ONOE proposal.

On economic grounds, Harish Salve highlighted that frequent elections lead to inefficiencies, citing an econometric estimate of over 1% GDP loss due to elections. On overshadowing regional issues, he said that has nothing to do with Constitution and such argument berates the intelligence of the voters.

“The cost of having elections is not the cost of an election. An election costs Rs 3,000- Rs 5,000 crore, that’s the price of democracy. But the cost of having elections is the cost of disruption. On an econometric model, it is 1% plus of GDP,” he said.

Harish Salve also addressed Opposition’s claims that ONOE would compromise state autonomy. “The state Assembly has no indefensible right to continue for five years,” he asserted.

Salve pointed out, “There is no constitutional guarantee that once you’re elected, you will run for five years, come what may. If there is no such constitutional guarantee, the fundamental assumption is wrong.

You must disrupt the system once to get it together for the rest of the life of the Constitution.”

While acknowledging the challenges of implementing ONOE, Salve emphasised the need for a structured roadmap, potentially taking three to five years. “This cannot be rushed through,” he assured, adding that the Election Commission would require time to prepare for the logistical demands, including ensuring sufficient Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).