One Nation One Election Bills: Voting showed BJP doesn’t have 2/3 majority for constitutional amendment, claims Tharoor

New Delhi, Dec 17: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Tuesday hit out at the government, saying voting at the introduction stage of two bills on simultaneous elections in the Lok Sabha showed the BJP did not have the two-third majority required to pass a constitutional amendment.

Two bills that lay down the mechanism to hold simultaneous elections were introduced in the Lok Sabha after a fiery debate on Tuesday.

Opposition parties dubbed the draft laws — a Constitution amendment bill and an ordinary bill — as an attack on the federal structure, a charge rejected by the government.

“We (the Congress) are not the only ones that have opposed this bill. The vast majority of the opposition parties have opposed this bill and the grounds are very many, it is a violation of the federal structure of the Constitution. Why should a state government fall if the central government falls?” he told reporters in the Parliament premises.

“Why should the timetable of one who enjoys the mandate of the people be truncated because of the timetable of another? It makes no sense. In a parliamentary system, you cannot have fixed terms. The reason that fixed terms ended in 1969 is because of the fact that we have in our country a parliamentary system… different Houses, different majorities, different coalitions, may rise and fall at different times,” Tharoor said.

He added that going through the trouble of changing the system like this made no sense because it would again result in the same mess when a future government at the Centre or in the states lose the confidence of the majority.

“My view is that this entire thing is a folly. In any case, the votes today have demonstrated that the BJP does not have the two-third majority required to pass a constitutional amendment,” he said.

Tharoor said the government might constitute Parliament’s joint committee in such a way that it has a majority but, without a two-third majority in the House, there would not be a constitutional amendment.

“So this discussion is increasingly futile,” he added.