Opposition calls move an assault on basic structure, federal spirit

Congress MP Manish Tewari called the bills an “assault” on the basic structure doctrine set by the Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case.

Opposition leaders on Tuesday launched a scathing attack on the bills introduced in the Lok Sabha that propose simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, arguing that the legislation undermines federalism, violates the Constitution’s basic structure, was introduced without adequate consultation with states and envisions an impractical scenario.

The introduction of the bills was followed by a division of votes using the automated vote recording system for the first time in the Lok Sabha. (ANI)

The bills -- Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and The Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2024 -- seek to align elections to the Lok Sabha, state assemblies and Union territories of Puducherry, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir. They were introduced by Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal after a heated 90-minute debate.

The introduction of the bills was followed by a division of votes using the automated vote recording system for the first time in the Lok Sabha. The introduction was approved by 263 MPs and opposed by 198 members. To be sure, the constitutional amendment will require a two-thirds majority to be passed in both Houses.

Leading the charge, Congress MP Manish Tewari termed the bills an “assault” on the basic structure doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case. “One of the essential features is federalism and the structure of our democracy. The bills assault the basic structure of the Constitution and exceed the legislative competence of this House,” said Tewari, who represents Chandigarh in the Lok Sabha.

The former Union minister warned that the “excessive centralism” in the bills “militates against the constitutional scheme in its essence, entirety and object”. He particularly questioned the practicality of aligning state assembly tenures with the central legislature.

Samajwadi Party (SP) lawmaker Dharmendra Yadav echoed Tewari’s concerns, accusing the government of trying to change “election dates according to seasons.”

Yadav alleged the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was finding new ways to impose dictatorship in the country, wondering: “Would there be a national election if the government of one state is dissolved?”

Similar apprehensions were voiced by other Opposition members, including Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) lawmaker ET Mohammed Basheer, who said that simultaneous polls would undermine local issues. NK Premachandran of the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) flagged the “uncertainty” and “lack of clarity” in the legislation regarding the conduct of elections in state assemblies. He cited the 1993 Kihoto Hollohon case to argue that at least half of the states must concur for the amendment bill to become a law.

Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Kalyan Banerjee, meanwhile, pointed out inconsistencies in the bill that aims to dissolve the assemblies to facilitate simultaneous polls. Arguing that the bill prioritises the “doctrine of pleasure” over the people’s mandate, he emphasised: “State governments and assemblies are not subordinate to the central government or Parliament.”

Referring to Article 82A, which the bill seeks to introduce through the constitutional amendment, the TMC lawmaker highlighted a specific clause empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) to advise the President on the possibility of conducting certain assembly polls alongside the Lok Sabha elections.

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi supported Banerjee’s concern, noting that the President typically takes advice only from the council of ministers under Article 74 and governors under Article 356, but not an election commissioner.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)’s TR Baalu and Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), or NCP(SP), leader and Baramati MP Supriya Sule favoured referring the bills to a parliamentary committee, if they could not be withdrawn.

“The electors have the right to elect the government for five years and this right cannot be curtailed with simultaneous elections,” Baalu said.

Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Anil Yeshwant Desai raised concerns about the model code of conduct implemented during elections, arguing that its application during simultaneous elections could disrupt the country’s overall development process. He also called for an evaluation of the ECI’s capabilities.

Hyderabad MP and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi contended that Parliament lacks the authority to draft a law that contradicts the principles of federalism. “This bill indirectly introduces a presidential style of democracy and maximises political gains and convenience,” he added.

Law minister Meghwal, however, said the objections to the bills were political in nature, adding that principles such as judicial review, federal character of the Constitution, separation of powers, secular character, and supremacy of the Constitution have not changed. He said he would move a resolution referring the Bills to a joint parliamentary committee for deliberation.