The government is likely to move a resolution to refer the bill to the JPC on Wednesday in Lok Sabha
Arjun Ram Meghwal. Pic/PTI
Two bills that lay down the mechanism to hold simultaneous elections in the country were introduced in Lok Sabha on Tuesday after a fiery debate, with the opposition terming the move "anti-constitutional" and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal asserting that the legislation would not tamper with the powers enjoyed by states.
ADVERTISEMENT
Amid uproar by the opposition, Home Minister Amit Shah told Lok Sabha that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said during a meeting of the Union Cabinet that the bill should be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for wider deliberations at every level.
The government is likely to move a resolution to refer the bill to the JPC on Wednesday in Lok Sabha.
The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha by Meghwal after a nearly 90-minute debate, followed by a division of votes -? the first step towards completion of BJP's long-cherished dream.
As many as 269 members voted in favour of introduction of the bill and 198 against it.
Opposition Congress, DMK, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party, NCP-SP, Shiv Sena-UBT, AIMIM among others objected to the introduction of the bill contending that it was an assault on the basic structure of the Constitution.
During the consultations held by former president Ram Nath Kovind-led high level committee on 'One Nation, One Elections', 32 political parties supported the measure and 15 parties opposed it.
YSRCP, which has four members in Lok Sabha, is the only non-NDA party to have declared support for the bill. BJD, another fence sitter, is yet to spell out its stand.
BJD failed to open its account in Lok Sabha in elections this year, but has seven members in Rajya Sabha.
Meghwal also introduced The Union Territories Amendment Bill, which seeks to align elections in the Union territories of Puducherry, Delhi, and Jammu and Kashmir with the Lok Sabha polls.
He said the proposed bills did not attack the "basic structure doctrine of the Constitution, as claimed by the opposition".
"Detailed discussions can take place in the JPC. The report of the JPC will be approved by the Cabinet. Then again, there will be a discussion on this (bills) in the House," Shah said.
Meghwal said he would move a resolution referring the Bills to a joint committee of Parliament.
The government would require a two-thirds majority for the passage of the bill in both the Houses in separate votes -? numbers it does not enjoy in Parliament currently.
After bills were introduced, Congress member Manickam Tagore pointed out that the government did not have a two-thirds majority among the 461 members who took part in the voting on Tuesday. In Lok Sabha, 269 members voted in favour of the bill against the two-thirds-mark of 307.
Though a two-thirds majority is not required to introduce a bill in Parliament, the numbers on Tuesday in Lok Sabha was indicative of the tough road ahead of BJP's floor managers.
Amid the opposition onslaught against the bill, BJP allies TDP and Shiv Sena declared "unwavering support" for the legislation. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, Shah and Meghwal held forth from the government side.
TDP member and Union minister Chandra Shekhar Pemmasani said "one nation, one election" would reduce expenditure on polls and enhance logistical efficiency.
Shiv Sena member Shrikant Shinde hit out at the opposition, saying they were allergic to reforms.
As Meghwal moved a motion for introduction of the bill, Congress member Manish Tewari expressed his opposition and termed the move an assault on the basic structure doctrine that stipulates certain features of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament.
Tewari warned that implementing simultaneous elections would require amending Articles 83 and 172, which guarantee the fixed tenure of legislative bodies. He argued that such changes violate the basic structure doctrine Samajwadi Party member Dharmendra Yadav said the measure to introduce "one nation, one election" was anti-constitutional, anti-federalism and against the basic structure of the Constitution.
Earlier, Trinamool Congress member Kalyan Banerjee said the bills linked the tenure of state assemblies to that of Lok Sabha, thus undermining the mandate of the people.
"The state government is not subordinate to the central government or Parliament. The bills take away the autonomy of the state assembly. It is not an election reform but just the fulfilment of one gentleman's desire and dream," he said.
DMK member TR Baalu said, "The electors have the right to elect the government for five years and this right cannot be curtailed with simultaneous elections." The opposition members also objected to Speaker Om Birla's move to call the treasury benches to speak on the bills, leading to a heated debate.
Rijiju said the speaker had given a ruling to allow floor leaders of all parties to speak on the introduction of the bills.
"You alone do not represent Parliament, every political party has a representation here," he said.
DMK's Baalu and NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) member Supriya Sule favoured referring the bills to a parliamentary committee, if they could not be withdrawn.
"This bill is aimed at maximising political gain and convenience. This bill will finish off regional parties," All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi said.
Shiv Sena-UBT member Anil Desai said the bill was an assault on the federal structure. He also wanted the Election Commissioners to be directly elected by the people.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
