One Nation, One Election Framework (ONOE)

The ONOE proposal seeks to synchronize the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections into a unified electoral cycle. Advocates argue for administrative and fiscal efficiencies, while opponents warn of impacts on India's democratic and federalist structure.

Historical Context

• In the early years post-Independence, simultaneous elections for Parliament and State Assemblies were standard.
• Disruptions began with the invocation of Article 356, or President’s Rule, first used in Kerala in 1959, indicating federal overreach.
• Article 356 was designed as a constitutional mechanism for restoring governance in troubled states but has been misused over 130 times since Independence.

Challenges Posed by ONOE

• Constitutional Amendments: To implement ONOE, amendments are required, particularly to Articles 83 and 172, which set five-year terms for Parliament and State Assemblies.
• Article 356 Misuse: The frequent misuse complicates ONOE implementation by potentially curtailing State governments' autonomy.
• Anti-Defection Law: The law lacks a time-bound framework for Speaker decisions and provisions for “group defections,” rendering it ineffective against political instability.

Federal Structure Risks

• ONOE might erode State autonomy by aligning them with the national election cycle, threatening the federal structure.
• Truncated government terms weaken the democratic principle of “one person, one vote, one value.”

Logistical and Operational Challenges

• The large voter base (over 900 million) would strain resources for simultaneous nationwide elections.
• Increased financial, administrative, and human capital costs need consideration against claimed efficiencies.
• Risks of voter fatigue and confusion exist, necessitating careful reflection before implementation.

Need for Systemic Reforms

• Addressing challenges like the misuse of Article 356 and strengthening anti-defection laws is crucial before ONOE adoption.
• Ensuring State governments remain equal partners in India's federal polity is essential for preserving the Constitution's spirit.

In conclusion, while ONOE promises administrative efficiencies, its potential threats to India's democratic and federal fabric necessitate cautious and comprehensive systemic reforms. True democratic governance extends beyond synchronized elections and demands commitment to federalism and strengthening State autonomy.

Supreme Court Ruling on CBI and State Government Consent

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant verdict concerning the powers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to state government consent when investigating central officials.

Judgment Overview

• The CBI does not need the approval of state governments to register an FIR against Central officials posted in different states.
• This ruling overturns a previous decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Key Aspects of the Case

• Background: The case involved FIRs against central government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) in Andhra Pradesh.
• Petitioner's Argument: The accused argued that the general consent given to the CBI by the undivided Andhra Pradesh was not applicable post-bifurcation, necessitating fresh consent from the newly formed Andhra Pradesh.
• High Court Decision: The Andhra Pradesh High Court had quashed the proceedings based on this argument.

Supreme Court's Interpretation

• The apex court stated that the consent of a state government is not required for the CBI to investigate central offences.
• The offenses in question were under central legislation and involved central government employees, making state consent unnecessary.
• The consent regime under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is not intended to hinder investigations into central offences merely because they occur within a state’s territorial boundaries.

Implications of the Judgment

• This ruling clarifies the scope of the CBI's authority in conducting investigations against central officials across states without needing state consent.
• It emphasizes the CBI's ability to operate under central legislation without state-imposed barriers.