sadalawpublications.com

federalism in India

One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism?

Trending Today One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? Madras High Court Rules False Sexual Allegations as Mental Cruelty, Grants Divorce to Husband President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI D Y Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power Bokaro Launches Mobile Land Court to Deliver Justice in Rural Jharkhand Supreme Court Questions Centre on Surrogacy Rules 2023: Challenge Highlights Reproductive Rights and Constitutional Concerns Delhi High Court Restrains Unauthorized Use of “TATA” Trademark in Domain Names Bombay High Court Halts BMC Demolition Over Alleged Illegal Structures Amid Procedural Dispute Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu’s Response on Facial Recognition in Policing Amid Privacy Concerns Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu Govt’s Response on PIL Challenging Facial Recognition in Policing Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Constitutional Right, Even for Third Child One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? 16 June 2025 REHA BHARGAV Discover the key arguments for and against the proposed One Nation, One Election policy in India. Is it a path to constitutional reform or a risk to democratic diversity? Explore its implications, challenges, and viable alternatives in this insightful analysis. Introduction: Understanding the One Nation, One Election Concept India, the world’s largest democracy, continues to innovate its electoral systems. A significant proposal in recent years is One Nation, One Election — a model where elections for both the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies are conducted simultaneously. While the idea promises financial efficiency and administrative ease, it also poses serious questions about India’s federal integrity and democratic diversity. Is this a step toward much-needed constitutional reform or a disruption of the democratic ethos? Historical Background: When Simultaneous Elections Were a Reality India conducted synchronized elections in 1951–52, 1957, 1962, and 1967. However, this cycle was disrupted in the late 1960s due to premature dissolutions of state assemblies and the Lok Sabha, particularly during political crises in 1968–69 and 1970. Since then, election cycles have fragmented, leading to year-round polling and continuous deployment of administrative and security resources. The One Nation, One Election proposal aims to restore and modernize this earlier model for today’s complex political environment. Why the Idea Is Gaining Momentum The Indian government has revived interest in simultaneous elections, even appointing a high-level committee to study its feasibility. Some of the major reasons for this renewed push include: Continuous election cycles keeping political parties in perpetual campaign mode. Frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct disrupting governance. Rising financial and administrative costs of conducting separate elections. In this context, One Nation, One Election is seen as a strategy for efficient governance, fiscal discipline, and political stability. Vision Behind One Nation, One Election The core vision of this reform includes:  Reducing Election CostsSimultaneous polls would significantly reduce financial strain on the Election Commission of India and public resources.  Minimizing Governance DisruptionFewer elections mean fewer interruptions due to the Model Code of Conduct, enabling smoother execution of public policies.  Ensuring Political StabilityAligned election cycles could reduce mid-term collapses and encourage long-term governance.  Boosting Voter EngagementA unified election event may lead to higher voter turnout and public awareness.  Fostering National IntegrationSynchronizing elections may align central and state agendas, reinforcing national unity. Arguments in Favour: A Move Toward Constitutional Reform  Cost EfficiencyMultiple elections throughout the year drain public funds. Synchronization could drastically lower these expenses.  Administrative ConvenienceFewer deployments of personnel and security forces ease the burden on infrastructure.  Reduced Governance DisruptionsFewer election-related pauses mean continuous policy implementation.  Long-Term Policy FocusGovernments can focus more on governance rather than campaigning.  Enhanced Voter TurnoutA consolidated election day could improve voter participation.  Curbing PopulismReduced election frequency may push parties toward long-term reforms instead of short-term populism.  Strengthening National CoherenceA unified election process might encourage a more cohesive national political narrative. Challenges and Criticisms: Risk of Electoral Disruption  Federal ImbalanceStates may lose control over their individual electoral timelines, weakening federalism.  Mid-Term CollapsesDissolutions of assemblies mid-term would break the cycle, complicating continuity.  National vs Regional IssuesSimultaneous elections could dilute local issues, favoring national narratives.  Voter OverloadToo many choices at once may confuse voters and reduce focus on individual candidates.  Electoral InequalityRegional or smaller parties may struggle to compete with national parties.  Logistical OverstretchManaging simultaneous polls across India’s vast and diverse landscape is a colossal administrative challenge.  Democratic DilutionMega-elections might diminish community-level engagement and local issues. Legal and Practical Challenges To implement One Nation, One Election, significant amendments to the Constitution of India—including Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174—are necessary. These require not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also ratification by at least half the state legislatures. Practical complications include: Managing early dissolutions of assemblies or Parliament. The risk of imposing President’s Rule to maintain synchronization. Enormous logistical coordination required by the Election Commission. Political consensus, especially among regional parties concerned about autonomy, remains a major hurdle. Alternatives to One Nation, One Election  Clustered ElectionsGroup states with similar election cycles for staggered synchronization.  Fixed Election DatesCreate a structured calendar to reduce unpredictability while maintaining autonomy.  Staggered Election WindowsHold elections within fixed time frames instead of exact dates.  Election Infrastructure UpgradesEnhance the capabilities of the Election Commission for efficient multi-election management.  Political ReformsStrengthen anti-defection laws to prevent early dissolutions.  Phased ImplementationStart by synchronizing a few states and expand gradually based on results. Conclusion: Reform or Risk? The proposal for One Nation, One Election presents a double-edged sword. It offers efficiency, cost reduction, and focused governance, yet threatens federal autonomy and electoral diversity. Legal amendments, logistical coordination, and political consensus are essential for any successful implementation. Instead of a hasty overhaul, a gradual, inclusive approach with interim reforms—like clustered elections and fixed dates—may better serve India’s democratic and federal structure. Ultimately, reforms must enhance, not compromise, the democratic fabric of the nation. References: – Election Commission of India – Indian Constitution – PRS Legislative Research – India Today – Firstpost – AAP – ORF – News18 – iPleaders – The Hindu – Times of India Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada

One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? Read More »

State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act

Trending Today State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act NITU KUMARI 27 May 2025 Explore the landmark 2024 Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Union of India, addressing CBI jurisdiction post-consent withdrawal under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. A critical case on federalism and Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. Introduction On July 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of State of West Bengal vs Union of India, addressing the legality of CBI investigations following the withdrawal of consent by a state government. The case was filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and States. This case centers around the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its powers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), especially Section 6, which requires state consent for CBI investigations within state territory. Facts of the Case On November 16, 2018, the Government of West Bengal withdrew the general consent granted to the CBI under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Despite the withdrawal, the CBI continued to register FIRs and conduct investigations within the state. West Bengal filed a civil suit under Original Suit No. 4 of 2021, seeking a declaration that such actions were unconstitutional. The state requested a judicial restraint on the CBI from investigating within West Bengal without specific consent or court direction. The Union of India argued that CBI’s authority stems from central powers and that withdrawal of consent does not override judicial or statutory permissions. Key Legal Issues Can the CBI operate within a state after withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act? Does this dispute fall under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Article 131? Is the suit maintainable in light of ongoing proceedings under Articles 136, 226, or 32? Did the CBI’s post-withdrawal actions violate constitutional federalism? Judgment Overview Bench The case was heard by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta. Case Citation 2024 INSC 502 The Supreme Court held that the suit was maintainable under Article 131 and that disputes involving inter-governmental constitutional matters fall within the Court’s original jurisdiction. Legal Reasoning Ratio Decidendi (Core Legal Principle) Withdrawal of general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act does not invalidate ongoing investigations initiated before the withdrawal. For new FIRs or investigations, the CBI must obtain specific consent or a court order. Federal structure demands mutual respect between Union and State authorities. Obiter Dicta (Additional Observations) The Court emphasized the importance of federal cooperation. Clear guidelines and jurisdictional protocols are essential to prevent conflicts between the Centre and States. Court Directions The CBI must adhere to jurisdictional limits post withdrawal of consent. The Union and States must develop clear procedures to manage CBI investigations fairly and transparently. Federalism requires the autonomy of both Central and State governments to be respected. Conclusion The Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Union of India (2024) marks a critical moment in the debate over CBI jurisdiction and federalism in India. The decision reinforces that state consent is essential for new investigations, upholding the spirit of cooperative federalism and legal clarity. The ruling sets a precedent for similar disputes between State and Central agencies, emphasizing the need for balance and constitutional integrity in India’s federal framework. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Read More »

Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld

Trending Today Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 377 Case, Cites Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under Indian Law Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Against Actor Arjun Rampal in Tax Evasion Case Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld NITU KUMARI 23 May 2025 Explore the landmark Supreme Court judgment on Article 370 and the constitutional validity of Jammu and Kashmir’s reorganization. Learn about the key issues, legal reasoning, and impact on federalism in India. Introduction: What Was Article 370 and Why Was It Important? Article 370 of the Indian Constitution granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, in a historic decision on December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Union Government of India’s move to revoke Article 370, a decision that has significantly altered the constitutional landscape of the region. The case was brought before the court through a series of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Background of the Case Key Facts On August 5 and 6, 2019, the Union Government issued Presidential Orders C.O. 272 and C.O. 273, effectively revoking Article 370. These orders amended the interpretation of Article 367, replacing the term “Constituent Assembly” with “Legislative Assembly”, allowing for the abrogation without the original assembly’s consent. This led to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split the state into two Union Territories. Several prominent political leaders and activists, including Manohar Lal Sharma, Shakir Shabir, and members of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, filed petitions challenging the legality of these changes. Legal Issues Raised Constitutional Questions Before the Court Was the abrogation of Article 370 by the Union of India constitutional? Were Presidential Orders C.O. 272 and C.O. 273 legally valid? Was the bifurcation of the state into Union Territories constitutionally sound under Article 3 of the Constitution? Did the Union Government’s actions violate the doctrine of federalism and the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Judgment Summary: What the Supreme Court Decided Legality of the Presidential Orders The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Presidential Orders and the subsequent reorganization. The Court ruled that: The substitution of “Legislative Assembly” for “Constituent Assembly” in Article 367 was valid. The Union Government did not engage in colorable legislation, as the amendment was made transparently and within its constitutional powers. Validity of State Reorganization The Court maintained that the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories was constitutional. It cited Article 3, which gives Parliament of India the authority to reorganize states for better governance, administration, and national security. Implications of the Judgment This landmark verdict has far-reaching political and constitutional implications. It: Reinforces the central government’s authority to amend the Constitution and reorganize states. Highlights the Union’s role in safeguarding national security and maintaining sovereignty. Sets a precedent for how the balance between state autonomy and central control may evolve in India. Raises important discussions about federalism, especially in regions with unique constitutional status. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 marks a significant chapter in India’s constitutional history. By validating the Union Government’s actions, the Court has redefined the center-state relationship and set a legal benchmark for territorial reorganization. While the ruling closes one chapter, it opens the door for ongoing debates around federalism, autonomy, and democratic governance in India’s diverse political landscape Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Sada Law • May 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Read More »