“Simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies will limit the amount of time and money spent in electioneering but it will reduce the government’s accountability to the people.” Discuss.
Approach · directive: “discuss”
What it asks · Present the savings in time, money and administrative disruption from holding elections together and set them against the risks to accountability, federal diversity and parliamentary flexibility.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Discuss the gains: time, money and administrative effort saved by simultaneous elections
- Discuss the cost: how fixed cycles may weaken the government's accountability to the people, with the federal and constitutional issues, and take a view
Open with · India held simultaneous elections in the first four general elections until 1967; the cycle broke as Assemblies and the Lok Sabha were dissolved early.
Cover
- Gains: lower expenditure by the State and parties, fewer repeated deployments of security forces and officials, and a shorter period under the Model Code of Conduct, so governance is less disrupted.
- Continuity of policy: governments can concentrate on delivery rather than a permanent campaign.
- Accountability concern: with fixed terms, a government that loses support is harder to replace, and the check that frequent polls provide is reduced.
- Federal concern: national issues and parties may dominate, marginalising regional issues and parties, and voters may choose the same party at both levels.
- Constitutional hurdles: Articles 83, 85, 172, 174 and 356 would need amendment to fix terms and handle early dissolution or a hung House.
- Practical needs: consensus among parties, enough voting machines and paper-trail units, and mechanisms such as constructive no-confidence or a fresh term for the remaining period. Since 2017: the Kovind committee (report, March 2024) proposed simultaneous polls from 2029, and the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduced in December 2024, went to a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Close with · Simultaneous polls offer savings but must be designed so that parliamentary responsibility to the House and federal diversity are not weakened.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 215 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
India held Lok Sabha and Assembly polls together in its first four general elections; the cycle broke after 1967 as Houses were dissolved early.
Time and money saved
- One poll cuts spending by the State and by parties, and spares repeated deployment of security forces, teachers and officials.
- A single spell of the Model Code of Conduct means fewer months in which decisions and schemes stall.
The accountability cost
- Frequent elections work as a standing referendum; with fixed terms, a government that has lost support becomes harder to remove or punish at the ballot.
- National issues and parties may swamp regional ones, and voters may choose the same party at both levels, weakening the federal distinctness of State polls.
What a workable design needs
- Amending Articles 83, 85, 172, 174 and 356 to fix terms and handle early dissolution, with devices such as a constructive no-confidence vote or a fresh election for the remainder term only, plus party consensus and enough EVMs and paper-trail units.
- Since then, the Kovind committee (March 2024) proposed a 2029 start, and the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 went to a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Savings are real, but must not come at the cost of the House's hold on the executive; keeping no-confidence and federal choice intact is the test.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.