Although the idea of holding simultaneous elections to Parliament and State Assemblies, if necessary, to local bodies seems good at first glance, many political analysts are expressing concern that there are possibilities of such a move jeopardising democratic values and the spirit of federalism. There are many questions to be answered like what to do if any government elected for a period of five years collapses in the middle? If elections are held in the State, the new government will assume power for a period of five years. Then the objective of simultaneous electoral system will be defeated. To prevent this from happening, the new government’s tenure will have to shorten. It is like undermining public opinion, federalism and democratic values.
There is no clear cut mention of no-confidence in the constitution. It is mentioned only in Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha. The rules say that 50 or more lawmakers can move a no-confidence motion. If the no-confidence motion is passed, the government will have to step down. When no faction is in a position to form a government, the solution is to dissolve the assembly and hold by-elections. And what should be done to avoid such a problem? The Law Commission made a recommendation on this in 1999. To this extent, the German Constitution has been cited. Accordingly, a motion of no confidence is introduced in Germany along with a motion of confidence.
That is, those who declare no confidence in the government should also be told who they are. After the approval of these two resolutions by the House, the President appoints the new Chancellor. Even if the governments change, the assembly will continue for five years. However, presidential rule is in place in Germany. India is a democratic country. Hence the recommendation was set aside. Many are of the opinion that if the State governments collapse with a no-confidence motion, there is no chance of imposing President’s rule on the pretext of simultaneous elections.