Abstract

The principal advantage of 'One Nation, One Election' is in the decrease in election expenses, as holding separate elections calls for substantial financial outlays. Additionally, it would lessen the workload for the security and administrative personnel, who would not have to do election-related tasks repeatedly. The Law Commission claims that as it will be easier for voters to cast multiple ballots at once, simultaneous elections will boost voter turnout. Additionally, the administration can concentrate more on governance rather than elections, which frequently impede the implementation of policies. However, in a nation like India, implementing one nation, one election would be a challenging task because it would seriously jeopardize not just the Constitution as a whole but also a number of political and constitutional concepts like democracy and federalism. The premise of "One nation, One election" is frequently criticised for raising fears that national parties and their leaders will eclipse regional parties and their leaders. The primary obstacle to implementing one nation, one election in India is the necessary Constitutional amendment. According to the Law Commission's recommendations, implementing one nation, one election in India will require a minimum of five constitutional amendments. The authors of this chapter not only aimed to draw attention to the significant constitutional obstacles that stand in the way of India's one nation, one election policy, but also to the different political and social issues that could pose an obstacle to the concept.

Keywords