'ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION': BALANCING EFFICIENCY, FEDERALISM, AND DEMOCRACY
Suggestion: Use this article for Critically Examine type mains questions
Introduction
- In recent weeks, there has been a growing discourse surrounding the concept of holding national and State elections concurrently, often referred to as ‘one nation, one election.’
- The idea has gained traction with the establishment of a committee led by former Indian President Ram Nath Kovind, tasked with exploring the feasibility and necessary constitutional changes for its implementation.
- The primary arguments in favor of simultaneous elections are reduced election costs and the potential to free political parties from perpetual campaigning, allowing them to concentrate on governance for a continuous five-year period.
Efficiency and Cost Savings
- Proponents of simultaneous elections argue that they would significantly decrease the financial burden associated with conducting elections.
- However, critics contend that when examined closely, the actual financial savings are relatively minor.
- Additionally, they argue that State elections are becoming a distraction for central government Ministers, affecting governance and parliamentary functions.
- A simpler solution could be for State elections to be the responsibility of State party units, while national politicians focus on governance.
- Nevertheless, the increasingly centralized and presidential character of Indian election campaigns makes this challenging to implement.
Logistical Challenges and Constitutional Compatibility
- Simultaneous elections in a country with over 1.4 billion people pose significant logistical challenges, especially given the need for multi-phase State elections.
- Furthermore, the concept conflicts with certain tenets of parliamentary democracy, which mandates that the government must have the confidence of the House at all times.
- Even if synchronization is feasible for one cycle, it would break down when a government loses this confidence, requiring either central rule or short-term Assembly terms, both of which have significant downsides.
The Specter of Horse-Trading
- The push to avoid government falls, even when they lose confidence in the House, may lead to an increase in political defections and “horse-trading.”
- This practice undermines the essence of democracy and the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Federalism and Democracy
- At a deeper level, two principled arguments against simultaneous elections are centered on federalism and democracy.
- Federalism, which recognizes linguistic, cultural, ethnic, and other collective aspirations through Statehood, could be blurred with national-level issues, risking the dominance of the national narrative and undermining State-level democracy.
- Simultaneous elections also pose a risk to the checks and balances within the Indian constitutional scheme, potentially concentrating power and weakening federalism.
- On the democracy front, the Indian constitutional framework places considerable emphasis on elections as the primary form of public participation.
- Frequent elections allow for extended public participation and debate. Simultaneous elections, however, would limit this scope without offering alternative avenues for public engagement in law-making processes.
Conclusion
While proponents of ‘one nation, one election’ argue for administrative efficiency and cost savings, the concept’s implementation and inherent risks present substantial challenges.
The costs, both practical and conceptual, could compromise India’s federal and democratic structure. Given these concerns, it is evident that the idea is fraught with issues and should be approached with caution or reconsidered altogether.
Question: “One Nation, One Election” has been a topic of debate in India’s political landscape. Discuss the advantages and challenges associated with the implementation of a synchronized election system for various levels of government in the country. How can this concept potentially impact India’s democracy, governance, and political processes?
DECIPHERING THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) BILL: CLARITY, CONCERNS, AND CONTROVERSIES
Introduction
The importance of clear and precise definitions of offenses within penal laws is crucial to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) emphasized the need for clarity in legal language. Recently, the Central government introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill, aiming to address terrorism-related and organized crimes. However, concerns arise regarding the vagueness of certain terms in the Bill.
Additions and Omissions
- The BNS Bill reduces the number of sections, primarily by merging various sections related to definitions and combining offenses and punishments under one section.
- Several sections, such as unnatural offenses (Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code), adultery (Section 497 of the IPC), and attempted suicide (Section 309 of the IPC to some extent), have been omitted.
Terrorism-related Offenses
- The BNS Bill incorporates the definition of ‘terrorist act’ from the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), with some modifications.
- The term ‘to strike terror in the people’ has been replaced with ‘to intimidate the general public.’
- However, the expression ‘such as to destroy the political, economic, or social structure of the country’ remains vague.
- The definition of a ‘terrorist’ diverges from the one who commits a ‘terrorist act,’ and the Bill introduces specific definitions for ‘terrorist organizations.’
- While this allows for prosecution without government sanction, it also excludes the accused from the restrictive bail provision.
Acts Endangering Sovereignty
- The reintroduction of ‘acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India’ appears objective and doesn’t aim to punish government criticism.
- The inclusion of ‘purposely or knowingly’ as a safeguard indicates the presence of mens rea. However, clarification is needed regarding the term ‘subversive activities,’ and the explanation in the section requires modification.
Organized Offenses
- The BNS Bill introduces the offense of ‘organized crime,’ defining an ‘organized crime syndicate’ as involving three or more persons.
- While several categories of offenses are specifically included, ‘cyber-crimes having severe consequences’ appears vague.
- ‘Petty organized crime’ lacks a clear mechanism to assess the general feeling of insecurity, and the constituents of an ‘organized crime or gang’ are not specified.
- Furthermore, ‘snatching’ is categorized as non-cognizable, despite having similar punishment to theft.
Dilution of Murder Offense
- The gravity of murder based on factors like race, community, sex, or language by a group of five or more has been diluted, with punishment ranging from seven years to life imprisonment.
- This differentiation may face scrutiny as arbitrary and unreasonable. Additionally, the BNS Bill increases the punishment for a fatal accident if the accused does not report the incident or escapes from the scene.
Sexual Offenses
- ‘Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means’ is rightfully made a separate offense with lesser punishment compared to rape.
- However, the exception regarding ‘marital rape’ remains, despite ongoing constitutional challenges. The omission of creating a new offense for the right to a ‘decent cremation or burial,’ a part of the right to life, is notable.
Community Service
The inclusion of ‘community service’ as a form of punishment for petty offenses is commendable. However, the absence of a reformation approach to punishment in the ‘statement of objects and reasons’ is a regressive aspect.
Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill requires further deliberation, as it will significantly impact the criminal justice system.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee must address inconsistencies, remove vague expressions, add appropriate explanations, and eliminate drafting errors to ensure the clarity and effectiveness of the law.
