In an interview with CNBC-TV18, Chhokar expressed scepticism over the government’s ability to muster the required two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, followed by ratification in at least half of the state assemblies. “This is not just a matter of coalition-building; it’s a lengthy and complex process,” he said, highlighting the current fragmented political landscape.
Chhokar also criticised the primary justification for simultaneous polls—cost savings—as fundamentally flawed. “Are we placing a monetary value on democracy? This perspective undermines the essence of having a vibrant, participatory democratic system.”
The founding member of the ADR further noted that even if the amendments manage to pass through Parliament, they would likely face judicial challenges. “Such a move disrupts the federal structure of the Constitution and paves the way for a backdoor attempt to introduce a Presidential form of government. If that is the goal, it should be brought to public debate, not smuggled in under the guise of reforms.”
Echoing similar concerns, Sanjay Hegde pointed out that the government’s arithmetic for achieving the required majority appears tenuous at best. While the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) may secure support from allies for a simple majority, obtaining a two-thirds majority would be a formidable task. “Persuading opposition members to abstain or support is a gamble, and even then, the bill is certain to face legal scrutiny,” Hegde warned.
He also emphasised the practical consequences of simultaneous polls, arguing that frequent elections are an integral feature of representative democracy. “Elections are the mechanism through which citizens ensure accountability and responsiveness from their leaders. Limiting this interaction to once every five years could marginalise local and regional voices,” Hegde added.
Political opposition to the reforms is already taking shape. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has denounced the proposal, calling it the “death knell of democracy.” Several opposition parties, including the Congress, have strongly objected to the reforms, viewing them as an anti-federalist move.
The government’s push for simultaneous elections, heralded as India’s most significant electoral reform since independence, includes two bills cleared by the union cabinet—a constitutional amendment bill for synchronising Lok Sabha and state assembly elections, and an ordinary bill to align assembly elections in union territories like Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir. Sources indicate these bills could be tabled during the ongoing winter session of Parliament, which ends on December 20.
Below are the excerpts of the discussion.
Q: The constitutional amendments that have been proposed, how easy or challenging will it be for the government to take it forward given that the NDA does not have a special majority in either the Rajya Sabha or the Lok Sabha? They have a simple majority but the constitutional amendment will require a special majority a two thirds majority.
Chhokar: I do not think the constitutional amendments will be approved either by the Parliament or by the state assemblies. It is as simple as that. It is not a matter where party in power can rustle up a coalition by doing all kinds of things. This is a lengthy process. You require two third majority in the Lok Sabha and in the Rajya Sabha. Then you require a simple majority in 50% of the states. Now that is not going to happen as far as I see, given the state of our current polity. All the reason that are given in favour of simultaneous elections, the most fundamental reason given is that it will save money. I find this reason to be extremely painful, embarrassing, and pretty much abhorrent. Are we putting a money value on democracy? Are we looking for the cheapest possible democracy or are we looking for the most effective and workable democracy?
As somebody was saying, that the money spent on elections can be used on development, is our democracy and development mutually exclusive? This discussion has been going on for the last six years and we go around the same thing and all of a sudden something new comes up that a committee has been formed and the committee report has been approved by the cabinet and now the bill has been approved by the Cabinet. Even if the constitutional amendments go through, it will be challenged in the courts. I for one will challenge it because it is against the basic structure of the constitution by way of the federal character of the constitution. It is a back door attempt to bring in a Presidential form of government which I have no problem with, but if you want to bring in a Presidential form of government, please go ahead and do that and let there be a national discussion on that.
I mean all the reasons given are so flimsy that one doesn’t even feel like commenting on them.
Q: How difficult will it be for the government to make this transition, to make this bill go through the parliament, through the state assemblies? The fact that the cabinet has approved suggests that there has been some amount of math work done in submitting this bill before the parliament.
Hegde: Not sure that the math work has been done. Though this is something that they’ve been talking about for a long, long period of time, the math work right now does not seem to be entirely in their favour. They will be dependent on their allies. I did see somebody from JDU supporting it, but they will find themselves dependent on their allies to get a basic majority also. For two thirds majority they will have to persuade a lot of people to not attend the House. Of course, they have various ways of trying to get that done. The thing is that this will all be challenged in the court.
I do think that this violates the basic structure of the constitution itself, not only on federalism, but in terms of a representative democracy as well.
You may complain that these frequent elections keep politicians and administrators preoccupied, but it is only because of these elections that the people are able to get their voice heard, get their little things done. Otherwise you will have to wait five years for every Ladki Bahin Yojana or some Ayushman Bharat Yojana. So, it will possibly lead to more and more of the regional parties saying this is anti-federal and that they will not be supporting it. In fact, Mamata Banerjee has already put out a rather large tweet about the subject, saying that her party opposes it and called it a death knell of democracy.
Watch accompanying video for entire discussion.
