‘One nation, one election’: Law Commission supports term changes to enable unified polls

While the term of the legislature cannot be altered through ordinary legislation, it noted that the Constitution permits such changes through an amendment passed by Parliament.

The 23rd Law Commission has backed Parliament’s authority to modify the standard five-year tenure of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies through a constitutional amendment, offering significant legal support to the Centre's plan for simultaneous elections.

In a detailed note submitted to the Joint Committee of Parliament (JPC) ahead of its December 4 briefing, the Commission said the timelines outlined in Articles 83 and 172 are not rigid and can be changed to advance broader national objectives.

While the term of the legislature cannot be altered through ordinary legislation, it noted that the Constitution permits such changes through an amendment passed by Parliament.

The Commission pointed out that the Constitution allows flexibility, citing provisions for early dissolution of legislatures and extensions during a national emergency, examples that show the five-year limit is not an absolute rule.

The Commission argued that aligning election schedules would curb the frequent administrative and political disruptions caused by staggered polls. Even if achieving synchronisation requires trimming the existing terms of some legislatures, it said the wider national benefits outweigh that trade-off.

The panel, rejecting claims that the proposal dilutes democratic principles, maintained that the electorate’s right to choose its representatives remains fully intact. However, what changes, it said, is the calendar, not the democratic process.

On the procedural front, the Commission made it clear that the proposed constitutional changes do not fall within the categories that require ratification by at least half the states. Parliament alone, it said, can pass the amendment.

The Commission also countered concerns that the Bills hand disproportionate authority to the Election Commission of India. The additional responsibilities envisaged for the ECI are consistent with its current constitutional mandate and do not amount to excessive delegation, it said.

Responding to objections rooted in the basic structure doctrine, the Commission stated that synchronising election cycles does not infringe on the principles of free and fair elections. While courts have affirmed that these principles form part of the Constitution’s basic structure, the panel argued that adjusting the timing of elections does not undermine voters’ rights or the democratic system.

The Commission’s opinion is expected to play a significant role in shaping the JPC’s assessment of the simultaneous elections proposal, a major electoral reform initiative the government says will reduce costs, improve administrative efficiency and ensure smoother governance cycles.