NEW DELHI: The Centre on Tuesday introduced two bills in Lok Sabha – the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Amendment Bill, 2024 – to change laws for holding

simultaneous elections

of Lok Sabha and state assemblies along with UTs amid massive uproar from the

opposition parties

, underlining the challenge Modi govt would face to synchronise polls.
In the 90-minute debate, the opposition claimed the ‘one nation, one election’ (ONOE) plan was against the spirit of federalism and exceeded the legislative competence of Parliament and was part of a conspiracy to bring in dictatorship by stealth. Govt defended the effort saying it is 41 years since Election Commission recommended clubbing of polls and said the two bills would be referred to a joint committee of Parliament for scrutiny.
A vote on whether the bill should be introduced saw the ruling side prevailing with a 263-198 score despite the glaring absence of 20 members, including ministers, from BJP. The opposition pointed out that govt did not have the two-thirds majority required for LS to clear the bill.

ONOE bills assault statute’s basic structure, says Congress
But the margin paled before the ask of the support of 362 – two -third of the 543-strong House laid down for the passage of a constitutional amendment bill. Although successive govts have managed to rustle up numbers in excess of their actual squad, the gap between the actual and the desirable is too big and would require extraordinary effort.
BJP does not have adequate numbers to meet the two-third threshold in Rajya Sabha either – 121 against the 167 needed in the House with a total strength, inclusive of the 12 nominated members, of 250.

This was pointed out by Congress’s Shashi Tharoor to predict that the bill was destined to be defeated. “Undoubtedly, govt has larger numbers on its side… but to pass it (bills to amend the Constitution), you need a two-thirds majority that they very clearly don’t have,” he said. Significantly, govt on its own referred the bills, introduced by law minister Arjun Meghwal, to a joint parliamentary panel for detailed scrutiny. Home minister Amit Shah said PM Modi had favoured referring the bills to a joint committee of Parliament for wider deliberations at every level. “Detailed discussions can take place in the JPC. The report of the JPC will be approved by the Cabinet and Parliament will get to discuss the bills,” Shah said, urging the agitated opposition MPs to calm down. “When this bill was being discussed in the Cabinet, the PM himself suggested referring it to a JPC,” he said. Meghwal said: “There have been multiple discussions on the issue. On June 19, 2019, a meeting was held by the Prime Minister on holding simultaneous elections in which 19 political parties participated. Of them, 16 supported the move while three others opposed it.”
“One of the essential features is federalism and the structure of our democracy. The bills assault the basic structure of the Constitution and exceed the legislative competence of this House,” Congress MP Manish Tewari said and demanded that the bills be withdrawn.
Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav said the measure was an attempt to bring dictatorship in the country. “Two days ago, govt was swearing by the principles of the Constitution. Now, they want to finish the federal structure which is a core principle of the Constitution,” Yadav said.
TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee said the move wasn’t aimed at election reform but to fulfil the desires of a single person. DMK’s T R Baalu and Anil Desai from Shiv Sena (UBT) also opposed the govt decision to introduce the two bills. NCP (SP)’s Supriya Sule favoured referring the bills to a parliamentary committee, if they could not be withdrawn. “This bill is aimed at maximising political gain and convenience. This bill will finish off regional parties,”AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi said.
BJP allies TDP and Shiv Sena, extended “unwavering support” to the election reform measure.
Congress’s Priyanka Gandhi Vadra rejected the bill as “anti-constitutional”. She said, “It is against the federalism of our nation. We are opposing the bill.”