On August 12, 2025, the Indian Lok Sabha took a significant step in the ongoing debate around electoral reforms by agreeing to extend the tenure of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) tasked with examining the highly contentious 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) Bill. The extension, which allows the committee to submit its findings by the first day of the last week of the 2025 Winter Session, marks another chapter in a legislative saga that has gripped both politicians and the public since the bill’s introduction in December 2024.
The motion for extension was moved by PP Chaudhary, the Chairman of the One Nation, One Election Panel, who also leads the 39-member JPC that includes lawmakers from across the political spectrum. According to Business Standard, Chaudhary specifically requested the House to grant more time for the committee to present its report on the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, as well as the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Both bills were referred to the JPC for further scrutiny shortly after their introduction, underlining the magnitude and complexity of the proposed reforms.
The ONOE initiative aims to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and all state legislative assemblies, a move supporters argue will streamline governance, reduce electoral costs, and minimize policy paralysis caused by the near-constant cycle of elections in the country. However, critics have raised questions about its impact on federalism, the autonomy of state governments, and the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
Adding further weight to the ongoing discussions, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has emerged as a key voice in the debate. As reported by Hindustan Times, Justice (Retd) Khanna is scheduled to attend the JPC’s meeting on August 19, 2025, and has already submitted his views to the panel. He clarified that the ONOE bill "does not directly abridge or downsize the principle that an elected government stays in power as long as it has majority support in the legislature." This assertion addresses one of the primary fears expressed by opposition parties and constitutional scholars—that simultaneous elections could undermine the tenure of democratically elected governments.
Still, Justice Khanna’s submission was not without caveats. He pointed to the possibility that deferring elections, as contemplated under certain provisions of the bill, "may result in indirect President’s rule." In this scenario, the Union government could effectively assume control over a state government, a move that Khanna warned might be "questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged in the Constitution." He highlighted that, while the ONOE bill does not explicitly shorten the term of elected governments, its implementation could have "an indirect impact and effect," particularly if a government falls before its full five-year tenure is completed. In such cases, the newly elected legislative assembly would serve only until the next scheduled round of simultaneous polls, rather than a full term.
Justice Khanna also drew special attention to Clause 5 of the proposed Article 82A, which grants the Election Commission of India (ECI) broad discretion to delay assembly elections and recommend to the President that they be held at a later date. He flagged this clause as potentially "violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the grounds of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution." Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, and any provision perceived as arbitrary could face serious legal challenges.
In supporting his concerns, Justice Khanna referenced his own judgment in the electoral bond case, underscoring the need for transparency and accountability in electoral processes. He also cited historical precedents, noting that since India’s first general election in 1951, there have been numerous instances where elected governments could not complete their terms. If such premature dissolutions occur under the ONOE framework, the number of unscheduled elections could actually increase, contrary to the bill’s stated goal of reducing electoral frequency and cost.
The ONOE bill proposes that the alignment process for simultaneous elections would begin in 2029, with the first nationwide synchronized polls anticipated in 2034. This timeline gives lawmakers, state governments, and the Election Commission several years to iron out the logistical and constitutional challenges. Yet, the debate remains intense, with both proponents and detractors presenting robust arguments.
Supporters, primarily from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argue that holding simultaneous elections will free up administrative resources, reduce the burden on security forces, and enable governments to focus on governance rather than perpetual campaigning. They also point to the potential for curbing divisive rhetoric and fostering a more stable policy environment. As PP Chaudhary, the JPC chairman, emphasized in his motion, the complexity of the issue warrants extended deliberation and broad-based consensus.
Opposition parties and several constitutional experts, on the other hand, caution that the ONOE bill could erode the principle of federalism by centralizing control over state election schedules. They warn that the proposed changes may undermine the autonomy of state legislatures and make it more difficult for regional parties to assert their influence. The provision allowing the ECI to postpone elections in certain states has been particularly controversial, with critics arguing it could be misused for political advantage.
Meanwhile, the Lok Sabha’s legislative agenda was further complicated on August 12 by the announcement of a three-member panel to investigate allegations against High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. As reported by Business Standard, Speaker Om Birla named Justices Amit Kumar and Maninder Mohan Srivastava, along with B B Acharya, to the committee. This followed the acceptance of a motion signed by 146 MPs calling for Justice Varma’s impeachment, after burnt currency was discovered at his official residence following a fire—a case that had already been the subject of a Supreme Court-sanctioned in-house inquiry. On August 7, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the inquiry and the recommendation to remove Justice Varma, further intensifying scrutiny of the judiciary’s internal accountability mechanisms.
As the JPC continues its work, the nation’s eyes remain fixed on the outcome. The ONOE bill, with its far-reaching implications for India’s democratic fabric, is likely to shape political discourse for years to come. Whether the extended deliberations will yield a consensus or deepen existing divisions remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the stakes could hardly be higher.