One nation,one election

Published On:

Recommendations of the High-Level Committee (HLC)

1. Chaired by former President Ramnath Kovind

2. Two-phased strategy for simultaneous elections across Union, State, and local governments starting in 2029.

a. First step: Synchronizing elections for the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies.

b. Second step: Aligning elections for local bodies (municipalities and panchayats) within 100 days of the national and state polls.

3. Proposes amending Articles 83 (related to Parliament's tenure) and 172 (related to state assemblies’ tenure), so as to allow simultaneous elections without requiring state-level ratification.

4. For cases of hung assemblies or early dissolution, fresh elections would be held for the remainder of the term.

 

Constitutional Concerns

1. Article 83 and 172: provides for a fixed five-year tenure for both Parliament and state assemblies.

2. Amendments may undermine the constitutional & democratic rights of voters and elected candidates.

3. Dissolution of some state Assemblies before full term.

4. Also, altering election terms could face legal scrutiny

5. Unconstitutional & impacts India's democratic fabric.

 

Federalism Concerns

1. “One Nation- One Election” (ONOE) goes against principles of federalism.

 2. The Indian Constitution establishes a three-tier government system- Union, state, and local bodies.

 

3. Distinct voter demands at different levels (National and Local level) will be compromised.

 4. Stiff resistance expected from Opposition parties a. Roadmap for Implementation Ex: Tamil Nadu state opposed it by passing a resolution, calling it a "dangerous and autocratic" policy.

 The ECI’s independence is questioned.

 2. Logistical challenges of conducting simultaneous elections nationwide.

 3. Risk of national issues overshadowing local concerns.

 4. Potential dilution of lower-tier democratic representation.

 Judicial Reviewed

  1. Doctrine of Basic Structure will be compromised as established by Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973).

2. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975) reinforces that free and fair elections as a fundamental feature of democracy.

3. Case Study: Chandigarh Mayoral election case (2024)

 Implications

 1. Balancing Efficiency and Democratic Principles.

2. Possible dis-incentivization of no-confidence motions.

3. Tension between efficiency, constitutional supremacy, and federalism.

4. Calibration between democratic and federal principles.

 

Project cheetah and Kuno

 

Project Cheetah

 1. A wildlife conservation initiative aimed at reintroducing cheetahs to India, where they were declared extinct in the 1950s.

 2. Cheetah Population in India: 24

 3. Location: Kuno National Park, Madhya Pradesh

 

4. African Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), a Sub-Saharan Africa species, was re-introduced. in KNP.

5. Living in acclimatizing enclosures.

6. Shift in Objectives, due to deaths of 8 cheetah’s which were reintroduced.

 a. Original Goal: "Establish a free-ranging breeding population of cheetahs in and around Kuno".

 b. Current Approach: "Managing" a metapopulation through assisted dispersal. 8. Future Plans: Project Cheetah plans to expand beyond Kuno to the Gandhi Sagar

Sanctuary, also in Madhya Pradesh.

 

Challenges and Criticisms

 

1. 8 cheetah’s have died since the project began.

2. Breeding Concerns: African Cheetah vs Asiatic Cheetah.

3. Transparency Issues wrt mysterious death of cheetahs, specially Pawan- 8th cheetah which was found dead.

4. SIT Controversy: Formation of a Special Investigation Team by National Tiger Conservation Authority, without providing any clear reasoning.

 5. Lack of clear answers from National Tiger Conservation Agency.

 

Suggestions

 1. Work as per expert advice as provided by South African and Namibian scientists. 2. Understanding the different conditioning and behaviors of the

 2 sub-species of cheetahs.

 3. Improve Transparency and preparedness to handle issues.

 

Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)

 

An Overview

1. Signed: September 19, 1960, by India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Mohammed Ayub Khan.

2. Negotiation period: 9 years

3. Facilitator: World Banks

4. Water Allocation:

 a. India has unrestricted use of the three Eastern Rivers (Beas, Ravi, Sutlej).

 b. Pakistan controls the three Western Rivers (Indus, Chenab, Jhelum).

 c. India gets about 30% of the water, while Pakistan gets 70%. Reasons for India's Renegotiation

 1. Fundamental Changes: Change in India’s population demographics, environmental concerns, the need for clean energy development and impact of cross-border terrorism.

2. Project Disputes

a. KishanGanga project (330 MW) in Bandipora districts

b. Ratle Hydroelectric Project (850 MW) in Kishtwar district

 c. Both are "run-of-the-river" projects on Western River

 Recent Developments

 1. January 2023: India cites Pakistan’s refusal to resolve disputes over the hydropower projects.

 2. April 2023: India’s Ministry of Jal Shakti held meetings to review the modification process.

 3. July 2023: The PCA ruled that it could hear matters related to India’s hydropower projects. India, however, reiterated its refusal to engage with the PCA.

 Concerns and Criticisms of the Treaty

 1. Outdated Framework: as it does not take into account the factors like climate change and global warming.

 

2. Inadequate for addressing present-day challenges, as the treaty was framed based on the knowledge and technology of the 1960s.