One nation, one election constitutionally sound, but has ‘major gaps': Ex-CJIs
They cautioned the PP Chaudhary-led joint parliamentary committee (JPC) – which is examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill – that the Election Commission (EC) was given excessive power in the proposed law, said the people cited above.
Earlier, former CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, and jurist Abhishek Singhvi had expressed concern over the proposed power of EC to delay polls.
The 39-member JPC — headed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Chaudhary — was set up in December 2024. Although there is no time frame for the submission of the report, the term of JPC has been extended till the first day of the last week of the upcoming monsoon Session.
The proposed law on One Nation, One Election (ONOE) aims to insert a new Article — 82A — in the Constitution that says, 'If the Election Commission is of the opinion that the elections to any legislative assembly cannot be conducted along with the general election to the House of the People, it may make a recommendation to the President, to declare by an order, that the election to that legislative assembly may be conducted at a later date.'
According to functionaries, Chandrachud suggested a few measures to curb this 'absolute power' of EC. He told the panel that EC can delay elections only if it can prove that there are issues related to national security or public law and order. He also said that any decision of EC must be approved by both Houses of Parliament — a provision that would require further amendments in the Constitution -- and EC can defer polls only for a fixed period.
Opposition members, including Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, asked questions about the constitutional validity of dissolving assemblies midway to sync state elections with Lok Sabha polls, said people aware of the matter. Many Opposition leaders have termed the bill as unconstitutional.
In the meeting, Chandrachud pointed out how India had simultaneous polls till the 1960s, and that the term of three states were curtailed to synchronise polls in 1967, said the people cited above.
Chandrachud expressed concern on how the bill gives power to EC to amend provisions of Part XV of the Constitution to roll out the new law. Both Chandrachud and Khehar rejected the idea that EC can unilaterally curtail terms of assemblies or decide when to hold polls, the people cited above added.
Khehar, according to functionaries, also suggested that Parliament or the Union Council of Ministers should have the final on the election schedule under the new Article 82A(5) of the Constitution (One hundred and twenty-ninth)Amendment Bill.
The ex-CJI said that the bill must clearly spell out what happens if there is an emergency.He also pointed out that the five-year term for a legislature is not cast in stone. He cited Article 83(2), which says, 'The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years..' to underline that simultaneous polls do not breach the basic structure of the Constitution, said people aware of the matter. He, however, suggested better drafting in some parts to prevent misinterpretation.
Speaking to reporters, Chaudhary said the committee welcomes different kinds of views as it will help the panel make good recommendations. 'We want committee members and all stakeholders to have a thorough discussion. Parliament has given us the bill so that we can improve on it, and not that we return it the way it is,' he said. 'Our committee has got a great chance for nation-building and I think such an opportunity will never come again,' the BJP MP added.
From the first elections in Independent India in 1952 until 1967, polls were held simultaneously across the country. But since the Lok Sabha and state assemblies can be dissolved before their tenures end, the state and national elections came to be held at different times after that.
Several committees, including a parliamentary panel, the Niti Aayog and the Election Commission of India, have studied simultaneous polls in the past, backing the idea but flagging logistical concerns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
8 minutes ago
- Hans India
Govt reduced land allotted to Metro for real estate lobby: Min
Bengaluru: Union Minister of State Shobha Karandlaje has accused the Congress-led Karnataka government of reducing the land allotted to the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) from 46 acres to just 9 acres in the prime Hebbal area in Bengaluru to 'benefit' the real estate lobby and illegal immigrants. The area falls under the Bengaluru North Lok Sabha constituency, which MoS Karandlaje represents. Speaking to reporters after inspecting the site, where a proposed multimodal transport hub was to be developed, MoS Karandlaje said, 'We are in the Hebbal area of Bengaluru. In 2000, under the leadership of then CM late S.M. Krishna, 51 acres of land in the Hebbal-Amanikere area were acquired. After encroachments, 48 acres remain today. Just a month ago, the current government decided to hand over this land to BMRCL for the development of a multimodal transport hub.' 'However, very recently, the allotment was reduced to just 9 acres. Why was this done? Why did the government backtrack from its original decision to allocate 48 acres and now grant only 9? Who is behind this decision? Which real estate mafia is influencing this move? Let us not forget - this land is situated en route to the Bengaluru International Airport,' she said. Emphasising the strategic importance of the location, she said, 'This is going to be a major junction. A Metro station, BMTC depot, Ring Road connection, and NHAI roads are all planned here. The area is ideal for a multimodal transport hub that can significantly ease traffic congestion on the airport road.' 'But now, the government and the minister in charge have colluded to override the previous decision. How much money exchanged hands? How much was given to Randeep Singh Surjewala? These questions need answers,' she said. She added that local farmers, who had given up their land for development, are now demanding it back if it is going to be handed over to private parties. 'People from various states have settled here. There are Bengalis, Rohingyas. Anti-national activities are reportedly taking place. Garbage and bottles from across Bengaluru are dumped here. No one knows who these people are. Many claim to be from Kolkata and possess Aadhaar cards, some of which are fake, along with fake voter ID cards. They claim to have lived here for 10 to 15 years,' MoS Karandlaje said.
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
The new Income Tax Bill: Will linguistic makeover lead to taxation simplicity?
India's Income Tax Act is getting its biggest rewrite in over six decades. The Select Committee of Parliament has unanimously adopted the draft Income Tax Bill, 2025, which proposes 285 amendments to the original draft tabled in the Lok Sabha on 13 February. The government has accepted most of the committee's recommendations, paving the way for its likely passage in the ongoing monsoon session. At first glance, the new Bill appears to simplify India's notoriously dense tax code. It's shorter, cleaner, and more intuitively laid out. But scratch the surface, and questions emerge: does a change in language truly make for a simpler law? A clean slate While the new Income Tax Bill boasts a significantly reduced word count—almost half of the existing Income Tax Act—this brevity is largely a result of smart formatting and presentation rather than a fundamental simplification of the law. Much of the detailed content that previously existed as dense prose in long-winded sections, sub-sections, provisos and explanations has now been streamlined into clearer tables, schedules, and structured sections. For instance, the existing bulky sub-clauses containing saving and investment avenues in section 80C have now been moved into a separate Schedule XV. This reorganization enhances readability and accessibility, but the underlying legal complexity and scope of the law largely remain intact. Words that matter The Bill replaces traditional legal expressions like 'notwithstanding anything" with 'irrespective of anything." While the latter may sound simpler, it lacks the legal clarity that decades of judicial interpretation have attached to the former. 'Notwithstanding" indicates overriding power—'irrespective" does not carry that settled meaning, potentially reigniting legal disputes courts had already resolved. Moreover, for a common taxpayer, both phrases remain equally opaque. Replacing legalese with plain language doesn't necessarily make the law easier to follow—certainty in interpretation matters more than tone. There's no change in the fundamental classification of income. The new Bill retains all five heads of income—salaries, house property, business or profession, capital gains, and other sources. These are simply presented in a neater layout. Key provisions, such as tax slabs, standard deductions, and the ₹12 lakh threshold under the new regime, remain as defined in the Finance Act, 2025. This ensures continuity and avoids compliance shocks—but also means that long-standing complexities such as capital gains computation, valuation rules, and transfer pricing remain intact. Provisos reimagined A major shift lies in how the Bill handles provisos. The 1961 Act used them to carve out exceptions to main provisions, often viewed as subordinate. The new Bill, however, replaces many of these with separate sub-sections. While this improves visual clarity, it can change legal interpretation—turning what was once an exception into a standalone obligation or right. This could reopen settled positions and generate fresh litigation, particularly when courts try to interpret these new standalone sub-sections. In an unexpected move, the new Bill dials back the codified certainty around faceless assessments and appeals. Instead of clear statutory mandates, it leaves much of the process to be prescribed via future government notifications or schemes. This opens the door to discretionary interpretations and potential confusion around procedure. The Bill explicitly grants tax authorities powers to access digital devices, cloud storage, and social media during search and seizure operations. Though these were often exercised informally, they now gain legal footing. This raises privacy concerns and the urgent need for clear procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. The real test ahead To its credit, the Bill streamlines definitions, introduces logical sequencing, and replaces dense legal blocks with structured tables and sub-sections. It also adopts more intuitive terminology—such as replacing 'previous year" and 'assessment year" with 'tax year." These changes will certainly help professionals and users navigate the law more easily. But true simplification requires more than a cosmetic facelift—it must reduce ambiguity and litigation, not merely restructure it. The Income Tax Bill, 2025 brings welcome clarity in format and a future-ready design. But tax law isn't just about how it reads—it's about how it works. The law's strength lies in the continuity of judicial interpretation, and rewriting it without preserving this context risks making it unpredictable in practice. The real test won't be readability. It will be how well the new law holds up—in assessment proceedings, in courts, and in reducing taxpayer disputes. Mayank Mohanka is founder, TaxAaram India, and a partner at S.M. Mohanka & Associates.
Hans India
38 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP leader Ashoka terms tunnel road project as ‘environmental disaster'
Bengaluru: BJP leader R Ashoka on Saturday lashed out at Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar for pursuing a tunnel road project in the city, claiming this is not just an 'environmental disaster', it's a monument to 'political arrogance, ego and corruption.' With this project, he alleged that the Congress-led government in the state plans to plough through Bengaluru's most iconic heritage zones and lung spaces - Lalbagh, Palace Grounds, St John's Hospital, Race Course, and Hebbal - by digging 100-ft deep shafts to launch giant tunnel boring machines. 'This isn't urban mobility. It's urban mutilation,' he said. Criticising the project, Ashoka, who is also the Leader of Opposition in the state Legislative Assembly, said the people of Bengaluru deserve better, not 'ego tunnels' for a few, but clean air, green spaces, and real, equitable public transport. 'This is not development. This is environmental vandalism masquerading as infrastructure, and Congress-backed betrayal of a city already on the brink. There is loot at the end of this tunnel!,' he said in a post on 'X'. According to a Cabinet decision, the tunnel road will cost Rs 17,780 crore, and it will be implemented under modified Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) model. The twin tunnel will run from Hebbal's Esteem Mall Junction to Silk Board Junction, covering 16.745 km. 'DCM @DKShivakumar's tunnel road project is not just an environmental disaster, it's a monument to political arrogance, ego, and corruption,' he stated. Questioning the 'deafening silence' of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and that of AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge over the project, the BJP leader further said, 'This is the same Rahul Gandhi who raised a hue and cry over environmental concerns in Aarey (Maharashtra) and Hasdeo Aranya (Chhattisgarh). But when his ownparty's Deputy CM is ploughing through Bengaluru's ecology, he suddenly looks away. Why the hypocrisy?.' Targeting the Congress leaders, Ashoka asked, 'If Rahul's environmental concern were reserved only for BJP-ruled states? Or is that the Congress High Command is getting a cut in this crore worth tunnel road project deal? 'Has their silence been purchased through contracts, commissions, and legacy politics? There is loot at the end of this tunnel!' Recently, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya slammed Shivakumar for pursuing an unscientific 'vanity' tunnel road project in the city, claiming that it would only serve the elite while burdening the common man. He urged the state government to abandon the plan and instead invest in expanding public transport infrastructure, warning that the tunnel project could worsen the city's traffic situation.
