Revision summary
Tarkunde, Goswami, Law Commission 170/255 and the Election Commission have long asked for ceilings on party spend, faster petitions, and inner-party democracy. Candidate spend is capped; party spend is not, which is why money still dominates the poll. ADR disclosure and Lily Thomas reduced opacity and the conviction cushion; they did not end criminalisation. ONOE, as framed by the Kovind committee, promises one Model Code freeze, lower cost and less policy freeze. Federal cost: truncated Assemblies, President’s Rule risk, and nationalisation of State polls. Simultaneity is not a substitute for audited party finance and a statutory Code. Reform that works is a package, not a single polling date.
Model answer
Introduction
Indian elections are legal, large and still expensive. From the Tarkunde and Dinesh Goswami exercises through the Law Commission and the Election Commission’s own notes, the unfinished list has been money, muscle, inner-party democracy and a Code that can postpone a transfer but cannot unseat a candidate. One nation, one election is one item on that list. It is not a substitute for the rest.
Body
Why reform is still asked
Committees have not been asking for a new polling date. They have been asking for a cleaner poll.
- Peg: Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, caps what a candidate may spend; it does not capture what a party spends on the same campaign.
- Peg: Criminalisation continues even after Association for Democratic Reforms forced disclosure of assets and pending cases, and even after Lily Thomas v. Union of India struck down the three-month cushion for convicted sitting members.
- Peg: Paid news, dummy candidates, and parties that never hold inner elections were already flagged in the Law Commission’s 170th Report; the Model Code cannot, by itself, unseat anyone.
- Peg: Voter ID, EVM-VVPAT and the EPIC roll improved the count; they still do not tell the voter who funded the campaign.
One nation, one election
Simultaneous polls are a calendar design with real fiscal appeal and a real federal cost.
- Peg: The Kovind High-Level Committee (2024) argued that Lok Sabha and Assembly elections on a shared clock would freeze the Model Code once instead of several times, and would use security and school buildings once.
- Peg: India is not a presidential republic with a single election day; in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India a State government’s majority is tested on the floor, not dismissed by a remote calendar.
- Peg: If an Assembly collapses, forcing it onto the Union’s clock means a truncated House or a spell of President’s Rule — a constitutional invention, not mere housekeeping.
- Peg: A simultaneous poll can turn every Assembly contest into a referendum on Delhi; hung Houses and no-confidence votes would still need a mechanical fix the Constitution does not presently give.
Package, not a date
Committees that liked a common calendar still put criminality, money and inner-party democracy first.
- Peg: One nation, one election without audited party accounts, a statutory core of the Model Code, and faster election petitions is a change of date.
- Peg: If simultaneity is still wanted, it needs State consent rather than a Union whip on every Assembly’s life.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD C[Committee agenda] --> M[Money and crime] C --> P[Party democracy] C --> O[ONOE calendar] O --> F[Federal cost] M --> V[Cleaner vote] P --> V
Conclusion
- Electoral reform is a cluster: money, crime, parties and the Code. One nation, one election may cut cost and Model Code fatigue. It cannot, by itself, clean politics, and it must not flatten the federal clock.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2024 · Q12). View answer →
-
Did the Election Commission invent one nation, one election?
It has, at times, supported a common schedule for logistics. The political design and any amendment bills are the Union’s.
-
Would one nation, one election end horse-trading?
No. Floor tests and the Tenth Schedule would still decide mid-term collapse. The calendar only decides when the next common poll is.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'? -
2024 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity. -
2024 · Q15 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution. -
2023 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment. -
2023 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
" The Construction of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society". Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. -
2023 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws. -
2023 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s. -
2022 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the role of the Vice -Presidents of India as the chairman of the Rajyasabha.
More from this topic
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.
Q15 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Indian Constitution
Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Indian Constitution
Puttaswamy held that privacy is part of Article 21 and that any restriction must be legal, necessary and proportionate. Section 112 of the Evidence Act treats a child born in a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proved. Goutam Kundu and later cases refused to make DNA a routine paternity weapon in a private quarrel. A test on a child still in the womb adds miscarriage risk and collides with the woman’s bodily autonomy. Suchita Srivastava had already linked reproductive choice to personal liberty. Proportionality will rarely justify a prenatal paternity expedition. The law of paternity is not a right to inspect a womb.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.