Though Cong opposes ‘One Nation One Election' Bill, we gave opinion to Parl panel: Himachal CM
He said this at the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, pertaining to the proposal of One Nation-One Election, held at Fagu.
Giving details, the chief minister said, 'The meeting was chaired by Member of Parliament PP Chaudhary. We were invited to share our personal and party's views on One Nation, One Election. The speaker, deputy speaker, and other stakeholders are also being called. As elected representatives, we believe it is our duty to participate in such democratic discussions.'
'Our stand is clear, we oppose One Nation, One Election. However, we gave inputs to strengthen democratic structures. We raised practical concerns what happens when a government collapses mid-term, or an MLA resigns? How will tenures align?' he said.
'If the proposal is to hold all elections in 2029, but our state elections are due in 2027, will those be deferred by two years? These are significant constitutional challenges that need thorough deliberation' Sukhu added while thanking the committee members for visiting Himachal and sharing the draft bill and scope of the proposal.
People want One Nation, One Election: Chaudhary
'People want One Nation, One Election , it's not just a political issue, it's a national issue,' said Bharatiya Janata Party MP PP Chaudhary.
'In every state we visit, civil society, scholars, Padma awardees, and even those in Congress-ruled states have shown overwhelming support to one Nation One election,' said Chaudhary, while adding, 'Separate elections mean separate voter lists, multiple deployments, school closures for polling, and repeated election expenditure.'
He said that the simultaneous elections were the norm until 1967, which changed only after 1970 due to early dissolution of assemblies. 'No political party can ignore the will of the people. If citizens demand it, even parties that oppose the idea may reconsider,' said Chaudhary.
One Nation, One Election would be significant for hill states: Thakur
Member of the committee and former Union minister Anurag Thakur said that One Nation, One Election would be significant for hill states like Himachal Pradesh.
'Simultaneous elections save time, money, and reduce disruption especially in hill states' said Anurag. 'The Joint Committee is rightly meeting political leaders, media, and intellectuals to gather diverse perspectives. Students and youth have shown great interest. If this bill becomes law, it can accelerate development and strengthen our democracy.' He said.
Basic structure of Constitution must not be altered: Pathnia
Himachal assembly speaker Kuldeep Singh Pathania said, 'The basic structure of constitution must not be altered. The Constitution already provides for five-year terms for both Parliament and state legislatures. But mid-term elections and breakdowns in governance have disrupted that structure. This committee is exploring whether we can return to that stability.'
People want elections held together: Jai Ram Thakur
Former chief minister and leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur said, 'The One Nation, One Election bill is a bold move. Political parties may have different opinion but the public sentiment is clear in favour of one nation one election.'
'Our party fully supports it. We believe it should be implemented as soon as possible,' added Jai Ram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Maharashtra: Opposition objects to political remarks made by NCP MLA while presiding in Assembly
The Opposition on Friday took a serious objection to the political remarks made by Legislative Assembly presiding officer and NCP MLA Chetan Tupe while conducting the business. Assembly Speaker Rahul Narvekar too expressed displeasure over Tupe's behaviour. The issue was raised by the Congress Legislature Party leader Vijay Wadettiwar and it was supported by Bhaskar Jadhav (Shiv Sena UBT) and Nana Patole (Congress). The Opposition said that it was not acceptable demanding that the dignity of the chair should be maintained. Speaker Rahul Narvekar took a serious note and expressed displeasure saying that such incidents should not happen in future. 'Those sitting as presiding officers should maintain the letter and spirit of the law. It is necessary for the presiding officers to work within the framework of the rules given by the Constitution,' he said. The Speaker assured that the chair of the Speaker will not be used for political purposes. He also told the house that he will take a decision in this regard in his chamber. Earlier, Wadettiwar strongly criticised the presiding officer for his political remarks during the discussion on a motion on farmers suicides and the present state of agriculture amid government's apathy. Wadettiwar read some of the political remarks made by presiding officer Chetan Tupe. 'While the discussion was on, the Agriculture Minister and the officials of that department were not present, but the work continued. Does presiding officer Chetan Tupe have the right to sit in the chair and present the government's position? While the chair has a certain dignity, it is not right to make political speeches from there, such a thing has not happened in the past,' he said. He further said, 'The presiding officer in his statements targeted opposition members for their absence while saying they speak about farmers but skip the proceedings.' 'While it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the House functions properly, it is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Affairs Minister to see whether the ministers of the department are present in the house. In such a case, the custom and tradition of the House should be followed from the highest position in the House,' said Wadettiwar.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Maharashtra legislative assembly may discuss BJP MLA Mungantiwar's bill against religious conversion
Mumbai: A bill introduced by BJP MLA Sudhir Mungantiwar to prevent forcible religious conversions could be taken up for discussion in the current session of the state legislature. It was initially introduced in the March session of the legislature. The bill seeks to prevent religious conversion by "force, inducement or fraudulent means". The private member bill proposes a punishment of imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of Rs 5,000 for those found guilty. If the victim of forcible conversion belongs to the SC or ST community, then the period of imprisonment should be raised to two years and the fine should be increased to Rs 10,000, the bill suggests. In his objectives for introducing the bill, Mungantiwar said, "Forced religious conversion involves coercion, deception or taking undue advantage of a person's poverty or by immoral means. This is highly undesirable." You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai "Owing to the increasing incidents of religious conversions or forced conversions, unrest is created in society, and the right to practice and propagate one's religion freely guaranteed by the Constitution is also violated. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sensação de queimação nos pés? Insira essa receita ao acordar G!Saú Undo Therefore, it is appropriate to take measures to prevent such activities," Mungantiwar stated. This was just one of the over 30 private member bills which Mungantiwar was allowed to reintroduce in this assembly session on Friday, setting a record of sorts. His other bills span a range of issues from prisons, labourers, school staff, street children, and housing.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC reserves verdict on pleas against merger of schools
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad HC on Friday reserved its verdict after completing the hearing on the pleas challenging the merger of primary schools in the state. A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on two separate petitions filed by Krishna Kumari and others. The petitioners have demanded the cancellation of the state govt's order of June 16 regarding the merger. The petitioners' counsel L P Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra had stressed that the state govt's action was in violation of the right to education given to children between 6 and 14 years under Article 21A of the Constitution because it would deprive them of the right to education in their neighbourhood . It was said that if the number of students in a school is low, the govt should try to improve the level of the school so that more children get enrolled. It was said that instead of doing this, the state govt found an easier way to close those schools by merger or some other means. It was argued that the Constitution of India expects the govt to work like a welfare state in which the welfare of the people should be kept in mind more than economic gain and loss. On the other hand, additional advocate general Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Singh as well as senior advocate Sandeep Dixit, appearing on behalf of director of basic education, argued that the govt has taken the decision as per the rules and there is no flaw and illegality in it. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Unbelievable: Calculator Shows The Value Of Your House Instantly (Take a Look) Home Value Calculator Search Now Undo by Taboola by Taboola It was said that there are many schools which do not have even a single student. It was also argued that the govt has not done any merger, but only schools have been paired. It was also said that the primary schools which have been paired are not being closed. In course of hearing, Kudesia repeatedly demanded from the court to ban the reporting of this case. It was said that the entire proceedings of this case are being reported, which is tarnishing the image of govt lawyers. However, Justice Bhatia outrightly rejected this demand and said that the govt, if it wants, may frame law but the court would not do this.
