By Nishant Ketu
New Delhi [India], January 8 (ANI): The first meeting of the Joint Committee of Parliament to examine Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 convened on Wednesday, marking the beginning of an intense debate between ruling and opposition parties over the proposed legislation.
Senior representatives from the Ministry of Law and Justice made a detailed presentation before the committee, outlining the bill’s historical background and highlighting reforms since the 1950s that influenced its drafting. The presentation focused on reducing election-related costs and ensuring governance stability. The officials given many sailent points on the basis of which the centre has come up with this legislation.
As per the source, after the presentation of the ministry, MPs from various political parties gave their views and raised many issues, which are matters of concern for their party’s agenda.
Earlier speaking to ANI, Committee Chairperson and BJP MP PP Chaudhary said that as far as the procedure is concerned, we will make an effort to listen to all stakeholders whose opinion is very important – be it legal experts, members of civil society or from judiciary, or political parties; to take everyone’s inputs. After taking everyone’s opinion, we will examine the Bill in an unbiased manner and with an open mind. The effort will be to see that we all arrive at a consensus. Because all MPs who are members of this Committee are eminent personalities. I believe that in the national interest, we will work together and try to build a consensus.
Sources informed that during the meeting opposition leaders raised sharp objections, calling the bill unconstitutional and detrimental to democratic principles. Congress MP Manish Tiwari labelled the proposal a “violation of constitutional values,” while Samajwadi Party’s Dharmendra Yadav argued that the legislation marginalized the interests of the poor and minorities.
DMK MPs echoed these concerns, asserting that the bill threatened federalism by weakening the autonomy of state governments. DMK MPs said that holding simultaneous elections for the State Legislatures and the Lok Sabha is against the Constitution and democratic process. The Bills have a disastrous consequence on the concept of free and fair elections, which is a fundamental aspect of our constitutional framework. The proposal to synchronise elections at both the state and national levels represent a significant shift in country’s democratic process which also could lead to substantial financial implications for the exchequer, undermine democratic institutions and create chaos within our decades-old electoral system.
Sources said that TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee questioned whether curtailing poll expenses was more important than curbing the powers of people by snatching away their democratic right to vote. He said that the bill is totally against the federal structure of the country.
As per the sources, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, a first-time MP from Wayanad, sought explanations regarding expense reductions under the new system, particularly in light of data presented about post-2004 elections, when Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were introduced. She asked the government to respond on this issue.
A ruling party MP has posed an intriguing question, highlighting a historical precedent that warrants scrutiny. In 1957, several state assembly terms were curtailed to facilitate simultaneous elections, yet there was no outcry about violating the Constitution’s framework. This is particularly noteworthy given that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister and Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the President, was also heading the Constituent Assembly at the time. The MP’s question is, why are opposition MPs questioning the validity of simultaneous elections now, when it was seemingly accepted in 1957?
Sources informed that allies such as Shiv Sena and JDU supported the proposal, citing governance disruptions caused by frequent polls. Shiv Sena highlighted Maharashtra’s experience, where overlapping elections often hinder policy implementation. The Sena MP presented a compelling argument, highlighting the upcoming series of local body elections slated to take place in the next few months. According to the MP, managing this packed election schedule would pose significant challenges for any government, making it extremely difficult to convene regular cabinet meetings and ensure effective implementation of decisions.
The JDU, another key member of the NDA alliance, has emphasized the importance of holding elections to maintain a focus on governance. However, they’ve also sought clarification from the government on a proposed bill that aims to limit the number of times a confidence motion can be introduced. Specifically, the JDU wants to know whether this bill would inadvertently curtail the right of members to move no-confidence motions, potentially undermining the democratic process.
While discussing the bill’s merits in committee, the sources informed that the YSRCP has expressed its willingness to support the bill’s implementation, subject to one crucial condition, i.e. the use of ballot papers instead of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), citing public mistrust in the latter. The party has also raised concerns that this bill, if passed, would erode the power and mandate of regional parties, ultimately strengthening national parties. Furthermore, they argue that while the country’s financial savings are uncertain, one thing is clear, that is large political parties will undoubtedly benefit financially from this process. The YSRCP has also posed a critical question to the government that are they attempting to pave the way for a presidential-style election system in the future?
Meanwhile, TDP MP Harish Balayogi supported the bill’s potential to improve governance but urged safeguards to protect regional representation.
As discussions progressed, both ruling and opposition MPs requested an extension of the committee’s timeline, arguing that the complex issues raised required deeper examination.
The meeting ended with a consensus to continue deliberations in subsequent sessions, with members demanding clearer government responses on implementation mechanisms, federalism concerns and transparency in electoral processes.
In today’s meeting, many prominent leaders like Anurag Thakur, Bhartruhari Mahtab, Sambit Patra and Bansuri Swaraj from the BJP, alongside Supriya Sule (NCP), Dharmendra Yadav (SP), Kalyan Banerjee (TMC) and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (Congress) were presented.
While Dr CM Ramesh (BJP), Shambhavi Choudhary (LJP) and Sanjay Singh (AAP) couldn’t attend the meeting due to prior engagements. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
