What are the merits of the idea of conducting simultaneous elections for state assemblies and Parliament? Are there compelling reasons for India to consider this option? Critically examine. (150W/10M)





  • Recently, the concept of simultaneous election in India has been reinitiated which entails for holding elections for Lok Sabha (Lower House) and State Legislative Assemblies together which was in practice prior to 1967. The idea behind this is to curb policy paralysis, improvement in governance and to more extent limit the exchequers’ burden. The topic is a hot issue for debate and involves various points to discuss.

Merits for holding Simultaneous Elections:

  • It will have similar period for imposition of Model Code of Conduct during which the developmental activities are put on hold and the time afterwards can be used for strengthening governance and also more concentration will bring more stability in This Model Code of Conduct also effects the functioning of bureaucracy, which can also be taken care of.
  • Elections in India are thought to be a big-budget exercise. Simultaneous election will limit the Expenditure. This savings can be utilized in other developmental activities.
  • Simultaneous Elections will improve law and order problem as frequent elections tend to disrupt the normal public life and affect the functioning of essential services. Frequent elections lead to frequent disruption of road traffic by political rallies and also lead to noise pollution.
  • It is evident that crucial manpower is often deployed on election duties for a prolonged period of time. If simultaneous elections are held, then this manpower would be made available for other important tasks.

Are there any compelling reasons for India for conducting simultaneous elections?

  • No, we don’t see any compelling reasons for conducting simultaneous election in India at present because:-
  • India’s elections are neither as expensive as it is thought to be nor does it have to be as disruptive to national governance as it is made out to be.
  • Over a five-year cycle, the government incurs a total of Rs 8000 crore for all elections. This works out to roughly Rs 1,500 crore every year or a paltry Rs 20 per voter per year.
  • To put this in context, India’s annual GDP is Rs 150 lakh crore. Every single year, India’s public sector companies alone lose 20 times more money than it costs to keep India a vibrant electoral democracy (as more fund for political parties are collected from corporate). This notion that the government can save enormous sums of money to help lift millions out of poverty by holding simultaneous elections is plain outlandish.
  • MCC by election commission regulates the party in power and restricts certain capital expenditure projects of an incumbent government once elections are called. Moreover, it is noted here that if MCC is in force in one state, the other states are free to launch developmental activities as we are planning more devolution of funds to the states (14th Finance commission recommendation and also claimed by the NITI Aayog). There is no holding of developmental activities across India with frequent election, then why simultaneous election is being thought.

However, simultaneous election also involves some challenges:

  • If both the elections are held together for instance in 2019, what will happen to the assemblies elected in 2017 and 2018? Will they be dissolved?
  • This will take the states power granted under Article 172 (1) of the constitution that allows an elected state government to recommend dissolution of the assembly and call for elections.
  • Under a simultaneous elections regime, the state will be beholden to the Union government for elections to its state, which goes against the very grain of political autonomy to states under our federal structure.
  • According to Article 85 and Article 174, elections to Lok Sabha and Legislative assemblies have to be held within six months (respectively) of dissolving either of them. So how can it be feasible if elections are held only at fixed durations?
  • Now, when the multi party democracy is a reality, it shows the polycentric voter diversity. How can there be simultaneous elections when there are different parties at the Centre, State, and local bodies?


  • Election brings the governed and the people who govern closer to each other. Hence, any trampling with the process which can possibly clutter the voter’s choice is unwarranted and lead to a deficit of democracy.
  • The challenges in the present system are genuine. However, there are other possible solutions which can be tried. As several political thinkers have said, “Indian democracy is a unique case of a successful functional democracy with a vast diversity” .The highlight of this diversity is the choice and opinion. Hence, any amendments to the democracy’s largest festival should not be fraught with damaging the democracy itself.
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zendagi_ migzara
Zendagi_ migzara
4 years ago

CDTEST 20496
comment image comment image

Pritam Kumar
4 years ago

-Introduction is okay…
-Points in favour are very good…
-Points under the compelling reasons are of narrow view…1st point growing of smaller regional parties…this is good for a diverse democracy India…this requires for effective grievance redressal of citizens and also to have check on executive decision….
-Compelling reasons require more points….
-Conclusion could have been more better…though okay…
Overall, good approach…You have improved much from previous answers…good going…keep writing….
Marks awarded: 5/10

Zendagi_ migzara
Zendagi_ migzara
4 years ago
Reply to  Pritam Kumar

Thanks for ur review sir , in case of smaller regional parties(SMR) , i believe if smr increase = large coalition = difficult to manage = greater unstability = frequent use of ordinance , therefore mushrooming of parties need to be control

4 years ago

CD test 20242comment imagecomment image

Pritam Kumar
4 years ago
Reply to  Vin

Hello Vineela…
-Introduction need more explanation…as it seems incomplete…
-Point no 3 under argument in favour…seems incomplete…
-points in favour and against are good…however the 2nd part of the question demands about…whether do we have any compelling reason to conduct simultaneous election….this has been neglected….
-In conclusion…the point amending constitution…I think it is more of executive decision…hence not necessarily require amendment….
Overall, good attempt…but more focus on question is required…
Keep writing…
Marks awarded: 4/10

prafull sharma
4 years ago


comment image

comment image
comment image

Pritam Kumar
4 years ago
Reply to  prafull sharma

Hello Prafull…
-I think you should mention introduction in general/common term…without mentioning PM…you can mention about Law Commission Report…Though your introduction is not wrong…but it will affect you in some points by making you biased towards one ideology/group/section etc….(we need to be more neutral)…
-The points towards favour and in-favour is good…
-However, you have not answered the 2nd part of the question…whether do we have compelling reason for conducting simultaneous election…
-3rd Page…1st Para…need more clarity…its more a kind of jumbled one…
Overall, good attempt…more focus on question is what required…
Keep writing….
Marks awarded: 3.5/10