0

“One Nation, One Election”: A Game-Changer in the Indian Electoral System

Introduction: Scope and Definition of Simultaneous Elections

The idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) aims at restructuring and synchronizing the Indian election system. It is a system where the Lok Sabha and Vidhana Sabha (State Assemblies) elections are held simultaneously once in five years. In such a scenario, a voter would normally cast his/her vote for electing members of Lok Sabha and State Assembly on a single day and at the same time. But however, it does not necessitate the voting process to happen in a single day. It can be conducted in a phase-wise as per the existing practice provided voters in a particular constituency vote for both State Assembly and Lok Sabha the same day. The initiative will need a constitutional amendment, which will require ratification by 50% of the states.

This system however, excludes the elections of Panchayats, State municipalities and by-elections. The concept “Simultaneous Elections” ideally implies that elections to all the three tiers of constitutional institutions should take place on a single day. But, the third tier institutions which are primarily a State subject as per the Constitution are directed and controlled by the State Election Commissions.  These institutions are so significantly large in number that it becomes almost impossible to synchronize their election schedules with that of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections.

History of Simultaneous Election

The concept of simultaneous elections is, in fact, not new to the country. Post adoption of the Constitution, the elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously between 1951 till 1967 when the cycle of synchronized elections got disrupted. The first general elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held together in 1951-52.

This practice continued over three subsequent general elections held in the years- 1957, 1962 and 1967. However, due to the premature dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies in 1968 and 1969, the cycle got disrupted for the first time. In 1970, Fourth Lok Sabha was itself dissolved prematurely and fresh elections held in 1971. The term of Fifth Lok Sabha was extended till 1977 under Article 352. As a result of all such premature dissolutions and extension, the cycle of simultaneous elections has been firmly disrupted. The table below presents the timelines of key milestones of various Lok Sabhas till date.

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory provisions

The aspects of constitution, dissolution and expiration of the legislatures (Lok Sabha / State Assemblies) are governed by constitutional and statutory provisions. Some of the relevant provisions for the instant matter are – 

  • Conduct of elections

Article 324 of the Constitution mandates the Election Commission of India (ECI) to supervise, direct and control elections to the offices of President, Vice President, both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha), State Legislative Assemblies and State Legislative Councils.

Further, 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution in 1992 provided for the creation of State Election Commissions (SECs) and are mandated to perform the above duties for constituting the third tier of Government in both rural and urban areas (Panchayati raj institutions, municipal bodies etc).

Besides this, the Parliament has enacted the Representation of People Act, 1950 & 1951 and the Rules framed there under, viz., Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to facilitate the conduct of elections by the ECI.

The Representation of People Act, 1951 provides the statutory basis for Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct elections in the country. Under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, ECI is empowered to notify elections to both Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies six months prior to the end of normal terms of these Houses. These provisions may be used to hold elections without extension of terms of some Assemblies.

  • Term of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies

Article 83 of the Constitution of India provides for the tenure of both Houses of the Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha). Further, Article 83(2) provides for a term of five years for Lok Sabha, from the date of its first sitting unless dissolved earlier. It also states that the 5 years tenure period can be extended by a maximum of one year only in the case of an emergency. A similar provision also exists for State Legislative Assembly, under the Article 172 (1)) of the Constitution.

  • Pre-mature dissolution of Lok Sabha or State Assemblies

Article 85 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India provides the President with the power to dissolve Lok Sabha. Similar provision for dissolution of State Legislative Assemblies by the Governor of State is provided under Article 174 (2)(b). In the case of President’s Rule as provided under Article 356, the Legislative Assembly of the said State may be prematurely dissolved by the President.

It is important to note the judgement of S R Bommai v. Union of India in this context. The Court held that the power under Article 356 should be used very sparingly and only when President is fully satisfied that a situation has arisen where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Otherwise, the frequent use of this power and its exercise are likely to disturb the Constitutional balance. Thereby, declared that the States have anindependent constitutional existence, and they have as important a role to play in the political, social, educational and cultural life of the people as the Union.

  • Collective Responsibility of Council of Ministers and No-confidence Motion

According to the Article 75(3) of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People. At the level of States too, Article 164(2) provides for a similar responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the State Legislative Assembly.

The Executive, therefore, derives its legitimacy from the Legislature and remains in power as long as it enjoys the confidence of the latter. A No-confidence Motion can be passed if either the Lok Sabha or the State Legislative Assembly loses confidence in the Council of Ministers. It can fall any time with the passage of a No-confidence Motion in that House.

Pros and Cons of the Policy

The proponents of such a proposal argue that simultaneous polls will reduce expenses associated with holding elections. It is reported that the 2014 general elections cost the public exchequer an estimated ₹3,870 crore. It has also been pointed out that the Model Code of Conduct currently comes into effect twice in a five-year election cycle resulting in prolonged “governance downtime”.

However, opponents argue that this is likely to favour larger political parties with a national presence while disproportionately affecting smaller regional parties. A 2015 study by the independent think tank IDFC Institute revealed that between 1999 and 2014, there was a “77% chance that the winning political party or alliance will win both the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in that state when held simultaneously.” This figure drops to 61% if the elections are held even six months apart.

Recommendations of the High-level Panel on ‘One Nation, One Election

In September 2023, the Union Government set up a ‘High Level Committee on One Nation, One Election’ under the Chairmanship of former President of India, Ramnath Kovind. 

The High Level Committee has met on three occasions and sought the views of various national and State political parties on the subject of a common elections schedule. 

The panel unanimously recommended simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies as the first step followed by synchronised local body polls within 100 days, highlighting that such a mechanism will augment development and social cohesion and deepen the “foundations of the democratic rubric.”

  • Need for alleviating “huge burden” on stakeholders

Emphasizing the need to restore the cycle of simultaneous elections, the panel pointed out that conducting several elections every year casts a “huge burden” on stakeholders such as the government, businesses, workers, courts, political parties, candidates contesting elections, and the civil society at large. Accordingly, it said that the government must develop a “legally tenable mechanism” to ensure that elections to the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and local bodies can be held simultaneously by 2029. It also maintained that simultaneous polls do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens or the basic structure of the Constitution.

  • Two Step Process for Simultaneous Elections

The Committee has suggested a two-step process for making simultaneous polls a reality. First, it recommended holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. According to the report, no ratification by the states will be required for the constitutional amendment.

Second, it proposed synchronising the elections for municipalities and panchayats with the general (simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly) elections in a manner that ensures that the former is conducted within 100 days of the latter.

Thereafter, the President will have to issue a notification on the same date as the date of the first sitting of the Lok Sabha designating it as the “appointed date” for the synchronisation of elections. Once such a date is fixed, the terms of all State Assemblies constituted after it shall end with the expiry of the Lok Sabha’s term. This will result in most State governments being unable to complete their stipulated five-year term even if they enjoy a majority.

If the new government elected after the 2024 Lok Sabha polls accepts these recommendations and immediately initiates the process, the first simultaneous polls could be held as early as 2029. During this transition period, all States with elections due between June 2024 and May 2029 would see their terms expire alongside the 18th Lok Sabha. Consequently, some State Assemblies would have terms of less than five years as a one-time measure to facilitate this synchronization.

  • Single electorate roll

The committee also recommended that Article 325 be amended to enable the preparation of a single electoral roll and single Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) by the ECI, in consultation with the State Election Commissions (SECs). If this recommendation is accepted, the process of creating electoral rolls will be taken over by the ECI, and SECs will play a purely consultative role. These amendments will require ratification by not less than one-half of the states.

  • Ratification by States

Article 368 governs the process of amending the Constitution. While some provisions can be amended in the same way ordinary legislations are passed— through a simple majority of those present and voting in each House of the Parliament; others require a “special majority” i.e., not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House of the Parliament as well as by a majority of the total membership of each House.

  • Meeting logistical requirements

The committee has recommended that for meeting logistical requirements, the Election Commission of India will plan and estimate in advance, in consultation with the State Election Commissions, and take steps for the deployment of manpower, polling personnel, security forces, EVMs/VVPATs, etc., so that free and fair simultaneous elections are held in all the three tiers of the government.

Conclusion

The outcome of ‘One Nation, One Election has the potential to alter the fundamentals of democratic set-up and reset the federal structure, at this juncture, it is necessary to examine the legal issues arising out of it. The recommendations of the Committee will have to be evaluated as to its practicality and design a possible solution for simultaneous elections. Further, the safeguards will also be required to ensure the continuity of the cycle of simultaneous Elections. There is a need to reduce expenditures incurred on continuous elections and yet maintain the balance of federal polity and effective governance.

References

Government of India, NITI Aayog, Notes/Inputs provided by the NITI Aayog.

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/one-nation-one-election-kovind-panel-faq-9213797/

https://www.nextias.com/ca/editorial-analysis/24-01-2024/feasibility-of-one-nation-one-election

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/watch-one-nation-one-election-what-did-the-panel-recommend/article67953798.ece

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/2step-process-amendments-a-look-at-one-nation-one-election-panel-proposals-101710412844212.html

Article Written By – Keerthi K

0

Delisting of Apps from Google Play Store: Google v. Indian Developers

Introduction

The Android Smart phones occupy a large market in India. Google’s Play Store constitutes the main distribution channel for app developers in the Android mobile ecosystem, which allows its owners to capitalize on the apps brought to market. For app developers, app stores have become a necessary medium for distribution of their apps to the end users and the availability of app store(s) is directly dependent on OS installed on a smart device. The US tech-gaint Google, thus, exercises a dominant position over this market by providing a platform for app downloads of various companies and start-ups on Google Play store[i].

According, to the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) and Google’s payment policies for android phones, the companies are obligated to pay a fees ranging from 11% to 30% depending upon their revenue for the access of in-app features and digital services. The developers under the policy have to pay Google 15% service fee for the first $1 million revenue earned by them and 30% of over $1million. The regulation of internet which, decades ago, was governed by the legislations of the Government is now being determined by the tech giants Apple and Google.

The payment of service charge for using the platform was never an issue for the developers, but the amount levied to avail the services rendered expensive and burdensome for the Indian market.

Events leading to removal of Apps from Google Play Store

On March 1st morning, Google announced that it would remove the apps of over a dozen companies from its marketplace for android phones that are non-complaint with its payment policy. Following this, Google delisted at least 23 apps from nine Indian developers from its Play Store. These include all thirteen apps from Matrimony.com – such as Bharat Matrimony, Kerala Matrimony and Jodi; three apps from InfoEdge – Naukri.com, Naukri Recruiter and 99 Acres; People’s Interactive’s Shaadi.com; Alt Balaji’s streaming service ALTT, and streaming services aha and stage. This affected around 95% of Indian Smart Phones market as the users were unable to search and download the apps from Google Play Store.

This action transpired when the Supreme Court declined to restrain Google from removing apps from its Play Store if they don’t comply with its billing policy.

Google, however, reinstated dozens of apps in spirit of cooperation that were de listed by the company on March 1 for resisting the firm’s platform fees on in app payments.

CCI’s anti-trust battle against Google

CCI imposes a monetary penalty of Rs. 1337.76 Crore on Google for anti-competitive practices in relation to Android mobile devices.

The antitrust watchdog had on October 20 imposed a penalty of Rs 1,337.76 Crore on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets with its Android mobile operating system (OS), and prescribed a set of about a dozen key measures that the company has to comply with.

It directed Google to refrain from participating in anti-competitive practices that were found to be in contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 and modify its conduct within a defined deadline. Google however paid the entire penalty amount of Rs 1,337.76 Crore imposed by CCI in the Android case after contesting it before different forums.

CCI imposes a monetary penalty of Rs. 936.44 crore on Google for anti-competitive practices in relation to its Play Store policies 

This is the second ongoing case against the tech giant by the CCI. India’s anti-trust regulator, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), on October 25, 2023 imposed a penalty of Rs 936.44 crore on Google for abusing its dominant position with respect to its Play Store policies. The commission has also issued a cease-and-desist order in which the regulator prescribed eight corrective measures that Google Play needs to implement to correct the anti-competitive practices[ii].

Legal battle over the Google Play Billing System

Post the CCI order, Google expanded its User Choice Billing (UCB) policy to all developers in India and updated its UCB policy. Accordingly, Google started allowing the developers in India to offer alternative billing systems. Developers choosing to do so had their service to Google reduced by 4%.

To comply with the policy, Google has given developers three options: opt for GPBS, have an alternative billing system, or operate on a consumption-only basis without paying a service fee. But app developers in India are not satisfied for two main reasons- first, despite opting for an alternative billing system, they were still obligated to pay Google an 11% or a 26% fee, which they say is unfair, and second, this, they argue, violates, the CCT’s order. the service fee charged was as high as 26% (just 4 percentage points drop from its earlier policy).

Eventually, 14 companies, including those whose apps were delisted, challenged Google Play Billing System (GPBS) in Madras High Court Two additional lawsuits by Disney+ Hotstar and Test Book followed. The Madras HC granted interim protection to all of them, but 12 of the original 14 companies filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. On February 9, the apex court did not grant these 14 companies protection from getting delisted but Disney+ Hotstar and Test Book’s protection continued[iii].

Conclusion

Google’s dominance in the smart phone apps market in India and its control over the online search market has been the issue of tussle. The decisions serves as a reminder to tech giants that market dominance comes with a responsibility to operate fairly and to avoid engaging in anti-competitive practices that restrict competition and harm consumers. As the technology industry continues to evolve, it will be essential for companies to operate in a manner that fosters fair competition, innovation, and consumer protection. The Billing Policy of Google is a long-standing issue. It is high time the Government intervenes and make regulations and administer the dominant players in the market.

[i] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1870819

[ii] https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/litigation/googles-appeal-against-ccis-rs-936-cr-penalty-delayed-by-nclat/105518431#:~:text=On%20January%2011%2C%20the%20tribunal,it%20later%20withdrew%20the%20case.

[iii]https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/google-moves-a-motion-before-madras-hc-seeking-dismissal-of-disneys-suit/article67202541.ece

iv www.hindustantimes.com