The Constitution of India is unique in many ways and does not fit into any preexisting models. The makers kept all windows open, and they really learned from the experience of other nations. Finally, they gave us a Constitution with a character of its own. The Constitution has grown organically on Indian soil in the past. It is constantly in the making.

Dr Ambedkar sternly affirmed in the Constituent Assembly that "by parliamentary democracy, we mean one man, one vote." The framers did not mention the 'one nation, one election' norm as a pillar of democracy. They were more concerned about bestowing universal adult suffrage based on equal voting rights on every adult Indian without any distinction.

It is said democracy is difficult to define. It has meant different things to different people. In fact, no political term has ever been subjected to so many contradictory definitions as democracy. It has now become fashionable and profitable for every state to proclaim itself as democratic. History would tell us that the erstwhile Soviet Union, the Communist States of Eastern Europe, the Chinese People's Republic and North Korea all styled themselves as democracies. So did General Stoessner's Paraguay and Sukarno's Indonesia. Yet, if anything is clear, it is that these states did not meet the definition of democracy at all.

In the real world, there is a wide gap between the concept of democracy and the actual workings of democracy. The 'ought' of democracy is seldom detected in the 'is' of democracy. Democracy proceeds on the capacity of the people to elect their representatives and faith in the representatives to represent the people. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Case recognised this principle. The parliamentary system is one in which the parliament enjoys a place of primacy and pre-eminence in the governance of the state, and the executive authority is fully responsible for the directly elected representatives of the people.

Democracy can function only upon the faith of the people, and it is that faith which is tested through regular and periodical elections to ascertain the popular will, which is not a mere ritual calculated to generate illusion but a reality. Democracy, being the 'basic feature' of the constitutional set-up, there can be no doubt that holding free and fair elections to the legislative bodies alone can guarantee the growth of a healthy democracy. The Supreme Court has recognised a democratic set-up, which postulates free and fair periodical elections as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The legislature is the citadel where democracy is in action. The principle of 'one nation, one election' cannot be seen as a universal doctrine constituting the hallmark of democracy since it is more concerned with the procedure of election than a citizen's right as the master of ballet in democracy.

Election is the cornerstone on which the magnificent edifice of democracy rests. So much so, electoral law has to be dynamic, effective and efficient, responding to the changing situations and growing needs of the vital, organic people. With the Cabinet approving the report of the High-Level Committee on 'one nation, one election,' it seems that the nation is swiftly moving towards simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, thus following the practice in vogue in seven democracies, including Germany, Japan, South Africa and Sweden.

Mapping the History
In the initial Independent era, elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously. It was then seen as efficient and convenient. It had its benefits and disadvantages in the political environment. In the post-independence period during 1951-52, India initiated its first election cycle for Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously. The concept of one nation, one election prevailed as the norm until 1967. However, the subsequent turn of events following the dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies in 1968 and 1969 and the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in December 1970 necessitated holding elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies separately.

It is seen that frequent elections lead to disruption of normal public life and impact the functioning of essential services and developmental activities. With the model code of conduct coming into force and the ban on making policy decisions and appointments, all developmental activities become virtually stalled. Whatever the reason that Indian polity can offer, there is uniformity of opinion that holding simultaneous elections would save time and public money by reducing the burden on the administrative set-up and security forces. However, this is a matter to be implemented through national consensus and with the approval of the political parties.

Concerns on Federalism
There is an argument that the very idea of simultaneous elections undermines the parliamentary system and the concept of federalism. One of the basic features of the parliamentary system founded on the Westminster model is that it offers to the executive the special privilege of dissolution of the legislature in warranting situations, which may possibly end if concurrent and simultaneous election is held to the Lok Sabha and to all State Legislative Assemblies once in 5 years. However, this can also be prone to dangers and abuse, with Article 356 becoming a rule rather than an exception. If that be so, it would go against the pious wishes of our constitutional framers. It is worth pondering here the observations of Dr BR Ambedkar concerning Article 356 that "such Articles will never be called into operation and they would remain a dead letter."

Structuring the Election Cycle
Simultaneous elections would involve structuring an election cycle where the voter would normally vote to elect members to the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assembly on a single day and simultaneously. This may impact the voter's behaviour for voting in Assembly elections substantially. Synchronised elections may result in voters conflating national and state issues and may vote for the same party both at the Centre and State. This may lead to national parties winning and gaining power both at the Centre and States, thereby eliminating regional parties from the electoral scenario, which often represents the interests of local social and economic groups. Does this sound ideal for democracy is the point to be deliberated? Diversity of opinions and plurality of parties is essential to free and fair elections, and this can be defeated with simultaneous elections. The width and depth of deep democracy may become undermined with synchronised elections becoming the rule.

Not part of 'Basic Structure'
There could be fears that the 'one nation, one election' concept may violate the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. But there is hardly any room for such apprehension, as sequential elections cannot be termed as part of the basic structure. The concept of 'basic structure' essentially entails those zones falling within the ambit of free and fair elections and not the manner in which elections are conducted. The Supreme Court clarified in Kihoto Hollohan (1993) that free and fair elections form part of the basic structure. Apart from that, to qualify as the basic structure, a provision must be a terrestrial concept that has its habitat within the four corners of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975). Regardless of the manner of conducting the elections, if the procedure followed leaves the sanctity of the elections unaltered and undisturbed and ensures a continued guarantee of free and fair elections, then it cannot amount to modification of the basic structure as pointed out by the Madras High Court in Thirubhuvanam Silk Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991).

Elections generally belong to the people and the political branch of the Government. All matters relating to holding or affecting elections are political questions and, as such, are not questions for the judiciary in the absence of controlling constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary. However, these are matters of public interest, not political claims. They are claims that constitute paramount legislative concern. What part of the election is a political question, remaining beyond judicial scrutiny, is yet to be answered. In the Truman H Newberry case, the American Supreme Court held that the manner of election can be controlled. But what is the extent? Sir Owen Dixon's classical statement may perhaps guide us in the search for an answer. The law that a sovereign can act only by law is supreme, but as to what may be done by law so made, the sovereign is supreme over the law.

Not an Easy Task
Introducing reforms in the domain of the electoral system is not easy. There could always be people who view the changes with doubt and who want the status quo to be continued throughout. However, any such change can be brought in only by making substantial amendments to Articles 83 and Article 172 of the Constitution, apart from bringing necessary modifications to The Representation of the People Act, 1951. A further clause needs to be added to Article 83, clarifying that when the House of the People is dissolved before the expiration of the stipulated period of 5 years, the State Legislative Assemblies shall also stand dissolved automatically. Similarly, a further proviso has to be added in Article 172 stating that the period of the State Legislative Assembly may be curtailed to enable the election to be conducted simultaneously with the election to the House of the People. Such changes could be subjected to judicial review on the touchstone of the 'basic structure' doctrine.

A Constitution needs to be a 'living document' capable of meeting the expectations of the organic people and adapting to the requirements of changing generations and their growing needs. However, there are some intrinsic values, such as democracy, that imply free and fair elections and federalism as constituting the 'framework originalism' on which the contents of the Constitution rest. It is this framework of originalism that is required to be preserved and protected in democracy through sustained legislative action and judicial measures. The Centre's approval to implement the 'one nation, one election' rule shall not disturb or damage the living Constitution's framework character.