Former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has informed a parliamentary committee that a law's constitutional validity does not automatically mean it is a good or necessary idea. Justice Khanna shared his written views with the committee examining a bill for simultaneous elections. He noted that arguments about weakening the country's federal system could be made regarding the proposed constitutional amendment.

Justice Khanna expressed concerns about the powers given to the Election Commission in the bill. He stated that the bill grants the Election Commission "unfettered discretion" to decide if an assembly election cannot be held at the same time as a national election and to make recommendations to the President accordingly. This provision, he believes, could be challenged as arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which deals with equality before the law.

He also suggested that the Election Commission postponing elections could lead to a situation akin to "indirect President's rule," where the central government effectively takes control of a state government. This, he indicated, would be open to judicial challenge for potentially violating the federal structure of the Constitution.

Regarding the history of simultaneous elections, Justice Khanna pointed out that their occurrence in 1951-52, 1957, 1962, and 1967 was a coincidence, not a constitutional requirement. He distinguished between "merit review" and "judicial review," explaining that when courts uphold a law's validity, it confirms the legislature's power and that the law does not break constitutional limits, but it does not comment on whether the law is desirable or needed.

Other former Chief Justices, including D.Y. Chandrachud, J.S. Khehar, U.U. Lalit, and Ranjan Gogoi, have also shared their perspectives with the committee on the "one nation, one election" bill. Supporters of the bill, including the BJP and its allies, argue it will save money and resources by reducing the disruption caused by frequent election cycles. However, opposition parties contend that the proposal could harm democratic principles and weaken the federal system.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information in this article. It discusses a legal and political issue but does not provide any steps or instructions for a normal person to take.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by explaining the distinction between a law's constitutional validity and its desirability, and by differentiating between "merit review" and "judicial review." It also touches upon the historical context of simultaneous elections and potential implications for the federal structure and Article 14 of the Constitution. However, it does not delve deeply into the mechanics of how these legal principles are applied or provide detailed historical analysis.

Personal Relevance: The topic of simultaneous elections has potential personal relevance as it could impact the political landscape and governance, which in turn affects citizens. However, the article does not directly connect these broader issues to the everyday lives of individuals in a tangible way. It is more of an informative piece about a political debate.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public service function by informing the public about the views of former Chief Justices on a significant legislative proposal. It highlights potential concerns regarding the constitutionality and implications of simultaneous elections, contributing to public discourse. It does not offer warnings or emergency information.

Practicality of Advice: The article does not offer any advice, tips, or steps for normal people to follow.

Long-Term Impact: The article discusses a policy that could have long-term impacts on the country's governance and federal structure. By presenting expert opinions, it contributes to a more informed public discussion, which could indirectly influence long-term outcomes. However, it does not provide direct guidance for individuals to achieve lasting good effects.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is informative and neutral in tone. It does not appear designed to evoke strong emotions like fear or helplessness, nor does it aim to instill hope or confidence. It presents information in a factual manner.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not use clickbait or ad-driven language. The wording is formal and informative, typical of news reporting on legal and political matters.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article could have provided more value by suggesting ways for individuals to learn more about the "one nation, one election" bill, such as directing readers to official government websites, parliamentary committee reports, or reputable legal analysis sites. It could also have offered a brief explanation of how citizens can engage with their elected representatives on such issues.

The idea of consolidating election cycles, while presented as a matter of efficiency, risks eroding the localized decision-making and accountability that underpins strong family and community bonds. When distant authorities are granted broad discretion over when and how local governance functions, it weakens the direct responsibility that kin and neighbors have to one another in managing their shared affairs.

The concern that expanded powers for a central body could lead to "indirect President's rule" highlights a potential shift of power away from local communities and families. This can create a dependency on external directives, diminishing the natural duty of fathers, mothers, and extended kin to actively participate in and shape their immediate environment. Such a shift can fracture family cohesion by imposing external structures that override local customs and responsibilities for child-rearing and elder care.

Furthermore, the argument that consolidating elections saves resources, while seemingly practical, can obscure the value of local engagement. The disruption caused by frequent election cycles, when viewed through the lens of community survival, can also be seen as opportunities for neighbors to interact, discuss shared concerns, and reinforce mutual trust. By minimizing these local interactions in favor of centralized efficiency, the very fabric of neighborly responsibility and the shared stewardship of the land can be weakened.

The historical observation that past simultaneous elections were coincidental, not mandated, suggests that imposing such a structure might be an artificial imposition rather than a natural evolution of community life. This could lead to a disconnect between the rhythms of family life and the demands of governance, potentially creating confusion and undermining the clear personal duties that bind a clan together.

If these ideas of centralized control and discretion spread unchecked, families will find their ability to manage their own affairs diminished. Children yet to be born will inherit a world where local accountability is weakened, and community trust eroded. The stewardship of the land will suffer as local knowledge and responsibility are superseded by distant mandates, ultimately jeopardizing the continuity of the people.

The text shows a bias by presenting the arguments of supporters of the bill in a more positive light. It states that supporters "argue it will save money and resources by reducing the disruption caused by frequent election cycles." This frames the supporters' view as practical and beneficial.

The text uses loaded language to describe the powers given to the Election Commission. The phrase "unfettered discretion" suggests a lack of control or oversight. This word choice aims to make the provision sound more concerning than it might be.

The text presents a potential negative outcome as a fact without full certainty. It says Justice Khanna "suggested that the Election Commission postponing elections could lead to a situation akin to 'indirect President's rule'." The use of "could lead to" shows this is a possibility, not a definite outcome.

The text uses a contrast to highlight concerns about the bill. It states, "However, opposition parties contend that the proposal could harm democratic principles and weaken the federal system." This directly contrasts the supporters' practical arguments with the opposition's more abstract, potentially negative claims.

The text explains a legal concept in a way that favors one interpretation. It says, "when courts uphold a law's validity, it confirms the legislature's power and that the law does not break constitutional limits, but it does not comment on whether the law is desirable or needed." This clearly separates legal acceptance from practical approval, leaning towards the idea that legal validity doesn't mean the law is good.

The text expresses a sense of concern through the words of former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. This concern is evident when he talks about the "unfettered discretion" given to the Election Commission, suggesting it could be seen as unfair or against the rules of equality before the law. He also shows concern by comparing the Election Commission postponing elections to a situation where the central government might gain too much control over states, which could be seen as breaking the country's structure. This concern is not overly strong but serves to highlight potential problems with the proposed law, aiming to make the reader think carefully about these risks.

The writer uses these expressions of concern to guide the reader's reaction by causing them to worry about the fairness and the balance of power within the country if the bill is passed as is. By presenting the former Chief Justice's worries, the text builds trust in the reader, as it comes from a respected legal expert. This makes the reader more likely to consider the potential negative outcomes. The emotion of concern is used to persuade the reader to question the bill, aiming to change their opinion by showing that important legal figures have serious doubts.

The writer persuades by choosing words that sound serious and carry weight, like "unfettered discretion" and "indirect President's rule." These phrases are not neutral; they suggest a lack of control and a potential takeover, which naturally makes people feel uneasy. The text also uses a form of comparison by contrasting the idea of "merit review" with "judicial review." This helps explain that just because a law is allowed by the constitution doesn't mean it's a good idea, making the argument clearer and more impactful. By presenting the opinions of multiple former Chief Justices, the writer reinforces the seriousness of the concerns, making the message more powerful and encouraging the reader to pay close attention to the potential downsides of the simultaneous elections bill.