Simultaneous election Bills do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution: former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud

Conducting free and fair elections is a basic feature of the Constitution, but the Constitution does not say that polls can be free and fair only if they are held non-simultaneously, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has opined, according to sources, in his written submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee reviewing the proposed legislations aiming to introduce simultaneous elections.

Justice Chandrachud, who served as the CJI from November 2022 to November 2024, will present his views to the panel on July 11. Justice J.S. Kehar, who served as CJI between January and August 2017, has also been invited by the panel, which is reviewing the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.

Editorial | ​Pie in the sky: On the idea of simultaneous elections 

Other CJIs highlighted problems

Their predecessors who had met the panel earlier had pointed out several infirmities in the legislations, according to sources.

In February, former CJI U.U. Lalit had told the panel that the Bill in its present form will not sustain a legal challenge in the Supreme Court. He opined that curtailing the tenure of some State assemblies to synchronise the polls will run counter to the basic structure of the Constitution, protected by the Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

In March, another former CJI, Ranjan Gogoi, had warned that it would not be advisable to give the Election Commission unrestricted powers to decide the schedule of simultaneous polls, sources said. 

Voters are not “naive”

Justice Chandrachud, as per sources, has dismissed the contention that holding simultaneous elections would blur the distriction between different tiers of government, since voters may prioritise national issues over regional concerns if the election cycles are synchronised. This argument, he said, is based on the assumption that the Indian electorate is “naive” and can be easily “manipulated.” This contention, he has argued, flies in the face of the universal adult franchise which has been part of the Indian Constitution since its inception.   

He further contended in his written submission, as per sources, that “staggered elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature.” He said, as per sources, that the legislation “does not infringe” upon voters’ rights to choose their elected representatives, since the legislation allows for midterm polls in case any State Assembly is dissolved, for various reasons.

Smaller parties may be marginalised

According to sources, Justice Chandrachud has also said that the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller parties or regional parties, due to the dominance of national parties with better resources, warrants legislative attention. But this problem, he said, exists independent and irrespective of the simultaneous elections legislations. 

The panel will also meet senior advocate E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan and former Union Minister M. Veerappa Moily on the same day as it hears from Justice Chandrachud.