The plan, aimed at holding Lok Sabha, state assembly and Union Territory assembly elections simultaneously, has remained one of the Narendra Modi government’s major governance reform proposals. The government argues that synchronised elections would reduce expenditure, minimise administrative disruptions and allow governments to focus more consistently on development activities.

However, despite the Centre’s push, the proposal remains far from becoming law.

At the heart of the issue is the need for constitutional amendments. Several provisions of the Constitution governing the tenure of legislatures and the conduct of elections would require changes before simultaneous elections can be implemented across the country.

To facilitate this, the government has introduced the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. These proposed laws are currently under examination and have not yet completed the legislative process required for enactment.

A key role in the process is being played by the 39-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), chaired by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary. The committee has been tasked with reviewing the proposed legislation and consulting stakeholders before submitting its recommendations.

According to political sources, the committee may seek additional time to complete consultations with states and other stakeholders. Such a move could further delay the presentation of its final report and postpone parliamentary consideration of the bills.

The government maintains that simultaneous elections would generate substantial savings in public expenditure and reduce the repeated deployment of administrative machinery and security personnel for separate elections held throughout the year. It also argues that frequent elections often interrupt governance and policy implementation due to the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct.

Supporters of the proposal believe a unified electoral cycle could improve policy continuity and provide greater political stability at both the national and state levels.

Despite these arguments, opposition parties continue to raise serious concerns. Several leaders have argued that the proposal could undermine the federal structure of the Constitution by reducing the autonomy of states in determining their political timelines.

Opposition parties contend that each state has distinct political, economic and social circumstances, making independent electoral schedules an important feature of India’s democratic framework. Critics have also questioned how the system would function if a state government falls before completing its full term.

The political arithmetic surrounding the proposal remains another major factor. Constitutional amendments require a special majority in Parliament and, in certain cases, ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.

While the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and its allies govern a significant number of states, securing broad consensus across the political spectrum remains a challenge.

The debate has also become linked to other major electoral reforms. Discussions around the proposed delimitation exercise and the implementation of the Women’s Reservation Act have added another layer of political complexity. Opposition parties have previously objected to attempts to connect these issues through constitutional amendments.

The government has indicated that it hopes to complete the legislative process well before the 2029 General Election. However, legal experts and political observers believe that achieving the necessary constitutional consensus may take longer than initially anticipated.

For now, the future of ‘One Nation, One Election’ depends largely on the findings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, parliamentary support for constitutional amendments and the willingness of states to endorse one of the most significant electoral reforms proposed in recent decades.