– Abdul Bari Masoud
New Delhi: Former Delhi High Court Chief Justice and ex-Law Commission Chairman, A.P. Shah, has strongly opposed the ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) proposal, calling it “unconstitutional and violative of democratic principles and the federal structure.” He made these remarks while deposing before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the ONOE Bill on Monday. Justice Shah also submitted a 12-page note to the panel outlining his concerns.
According to sources, Justice Shah criticized the bill on multiple grounds, particularly the provision empowering the Election Commission to recommend postponing state assembly elections. He argued that assembly elections must be held for a full five-year term. However, the bill proposes that all state assembly elections be conducted concurrently with the next parliamentary election after the law is enacted, regardless of their remaining tenure.
He also rejected the notion that simultaneous elections would lead to significant cost savings for the government. When asked about possible alternatives to the bill’s provisions, he stated that he would share his views with the committee later.
Justice Shah was among the legal experts consulted by the committee, and he is believed to have expressed strong disapproval of the ONOE proposal.
On the other hand, senior advocate Harish Salve, who also appeared before the panel, argued that the proposed law aligns with constitutional requirements. Salve, a member of the high-level committee led by former President and BJP leader Ram Nath Kovind, defended the proposal, asserting that it does not infringe on people’s voting rights. He maintained that the constitutional amendments introduced in the bill remain within constitutional limits.
During the session, DMK MP P. Wilson questioned Salve, who admitted that ONOE is a conditional legislation. The nearly five-hour discussion saw both Salve and Justice Shah answering questions from committee members, chaired by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary.
Chaudhary described the meeting as “positive,” stating that members had the opportunity to express concerns and seek clarifications. He noted that Justice Shah’s session lasted two hours, while Salve’s took almost three.
