New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dye Chandrachud has supported the constitutionality of the “One Nation, One Election” (ONP) concept of “One Nation, One Election” (ONP) concept from their presence before the joint parliamentary panel on the elections simultaneously.Also Read: Govt targeted 2034, 1 ‘one nation, one election’The Eastern-CJI, and another former Chief Justice, JS Khehar, is scheduled to appear before the committee later this week on Friday.“The Constitution never kept the national and state elections separated,” Chandrachud mentioned in its opinion presented to the Joint Committee of Parliament (JPC), in which PP Chaudhary of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party led. It was Chandrachud’s response to the opposition’s criticism that the synchronization of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections “violates” the original structure of the Constitution.However, they questioned the “comprehensive powers” given to the Election Commission to conduct elections simultaneously. The concern was earlier raised by another former Chief Justice, Ranjan Gogoi.“Such unconscious authority enabled the pole body to prevent or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond constitutionally compulsory five years, under the excuse that simultaneous elections are not possible with the Lok Sabha. The constitution should define, dillon and structure to define the circumstances, under which ECI can invite this power, which was with the 50s of the country.He said, “The Constitution should define, premiere and structure the situation under which ECI can implement this power.Another ex-CJI, UU Lalit has also not questioned the constitutionality of the concept of Onop. Gogoi and Lalit presented their views before JPC in February and March respectively.‘Onop will not violate voters’Chandrachud also said in his written opinion that simultaneous elections would not violate the rights of voters to choose their representatives, and this bill ensures that the electors continuously represent the Parliament or legislative assemblies by their duly elected members of the legislative assemblies.“Elections opposing elections together are based on the basis that Indian voters are innocent and can be easily manipulated. The argument that the staggering election is not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution (or part of the principles of federalism or democracy). The shocking time of elections cannot be considered a feature of the original constitution, giving an irreversible feature alone, ”he said.However, his opinion is not without notes of caution on some characteristics or potential implications of the bill if it is to be enacted.For example, Chandrachud has appeared to share the concern that simultaneous elections can be “marginalized” to small or regional parties due to the dominance of the better-Purchased national parties, saying that it is an important policy aspect that pays legislative attention.While the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 and the operation of election rules, 1961, during the election campaign, a candidate should put roof on the amount spent, there is no limit on the expenditure incurred by political parties, he said.This difference benefits parties with more financial resources, they argued.As stated in the Bill, the duration of the House elected after the Midator Poll will be only for the remaining five -year tenure, Chandrachud has said that the government’s ability to take any meaningful project will be “at least” if its tenure is only one year or less, as the code of conduct of the code of conduct will be implemented six months before the next elections.Many JPC members have also raised this point about the potential priorities and strengths of the government selected for short periods.
