Text & Context: Simultaneous polls- do States have a say?
Current Affairs for 20th September, 2023
Text & Context: Simultaneous polls- do States have a say?
In news?
The Union government set up a committee to examine the 'one nation one election' idea and make recommendations for holding simultaneous elections in the country, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind.
Amongst the terms of reference given by the Law Ministry, is not to recommend if the constitutional amendments required for this would require ratification from the states.
Article 368 governs the process of amending the Constitution. It can take place through three different procedures.
• Simple majority of those present and voting in each House of the Parliament, similar to ordinary legislations. Such provisions are excluded from the purview of Article 368, for example- amendments contemplated in Article-4, Article 169, among others.
• Special majority wherein not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House as well as by a majority of the total membership of each House.
• Special majority and ratification by atleast one-half of the State legislatures. No specific time limit for ratification has been specified but resolutions ratifying the proposed amendment should be passed before the bill is presented to the President for his assent.
Such provisions are specifically listed in Article 368(2). They are: Article 54, Article 55, article 73 and 162, Article 241, article 279A; Chapter IV of part V, Chapter V of part VI and Chapter I of part XI; any of the lists in the 7th Schedule; the representation of states in Parliament; or the provisions of Article 368 itself.
These provisions are generally called 'entrenched provisions'.
Popular cases:
• Kihoto Hollahan vs. Zachillhu (1991) – the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule inserted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 was challenged on the ground that the amendment was not ratified by the states. It was purported to oust the jurisdiction of all courts by virtue of Paragraph 7. The amendment brought about changes with respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts – which would require ratification of states. Hence, while the Supreme Court Bench upheld the 10th Schedule, it declared Paragraph 7 to be invalid.
• Union of India vs. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) – the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 to the extent that it introduced Part IXB to deal with co-operative societies. The amendment required ratification by atleast one-half of the state legislatures since it dealt with an exclusive State subject (Entry 32 in List II of the 7th Schedule). The majority judgement invoked the doctrine of severability to make Part IXB operative only insofar as it concerns multi-State cooperative societies.
Law Commission's stance?
In 2018, the Law Commission chaired by Justice B.S. Chauhan released a draft report stipulating that simultaneous elections are not feasible within the existing constitutional framework. That appropriate amendments have to brought about in the Constitution, the RPA 1951 and the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. The commission also noted that such an amendment must receive ratification by atleast 50% of the states.