DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL BANGALORE SOUTH

Dear Delegates,
We warmly welcome you to the All India Political Parties
Meet (AIPPM). We are absolutely elated to be serving as part
of the Executive Board (EB) of DiPSMUN 2025 and look
forward to having you be a part of the AIPPM as well, making
the three days of the conference a cherishable and fruitful
experience. We will always be there for you at every step, to
encourage you, push your boundaries, and re-centre focus
when needed. We count on you, as much as you might count
on us. We look forward to mutual growth, and learning,
albeit within the frame of discipline and cooperation. This
study guide is a mere framework for your deeper research.
It streamlines various angles and viewpoints so that it
enables you to understand the concepts revolving around
the agenda. However, we cannot emphasize enough the
need to pursue your own sources outside the confines of
this study guide as it will not cover your individual stances,
the compliance of which is imperative to us.
The All India Political Parties Meet is a unique simulation that
intends to mirror real-world political consultations and
negotiations among parties from across the country. An
AIPPM, unlike a parliamentary session, serves as an informal
platform for dialogue, consensus building, policy review and
negotiation on pressing national and policy issues. Delegates
in this committee are expected to represent precisely the
various political parties and ideologies, voicing their party’s
stance while engaging in constructive debate. While the
committee holds no legislative authority, it can make well-
informed recommendations aimed at influencing future
policy decisions and legislative actions. Therefore, the
AIPPM plays a crucial role in fostering cooperative
federalism, ensuring diverse viewpoints are heard, and
encouraging policy-oriented solutions that balance national
priorities with regional interests.

The cornerstone of any democracy lies in its ability to

change and reform with time; however, this also comes with
the caveat that if a certain democracy is too frequently
changed, the people might lose faith in it due to no
sustainable system. This brings to the front the paradox that
this AIPPM aims to solve. Electoral reforms are not a new
phenomenon in our country, ever since India’s independence
in 1947, there have been constant reforms brought it our
electoral democracy.
Since the first general elections in 1951–52, India’s electoral
system has undergone multiple reforms. The 61st
Constitutional Amendment lowered the voting age from 21
to 18. The introduction of the Election Commission of India
(ECI) as an independent constitutional body, the use of
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), Voter Verified Paper
Audit Trail (VVPAT), and changes to the Representation of
the People Acts (1950 & 1951) are milestones. Several expert
bodies, such as the Law Commission, Election Commission,
and Parliamentary Committees, have consistently
recommended reforms addressing issues of transparency,
equity, and efficiency.

Despite these reforms, India’s electoral landscape still faces

persistent challenges. Disproportionate representation due
to outdated delimitation, the frequent imposition of the
Model Code of Conduct, rising electoral expenses, misuse of
state machinery, and the weakening of regional electoral
voices are amongst the several concerns that our nation
faces today.

Amidst these challenges, policies like the One Nation, One

Election (ONOE) and the exercise of delimitation have come
up as possible reforms. Some may argue that reforms like
these are necessary to ensure representative parity, fiscal
discipline, uninterrupted governance, and long-term
institutional coherence within India's federal framework.
However, while acknowledging these benefits, critics have
pointed out several shortcomings. Critics are apprehensive
that delimitation may disproportionately reduce
representation for southern states that have successfully
controlled population growth, while ONOE raises concerns
about undermining federalism, overshadowing local issues,
and concentrating electoral influence in national narratives.

Keeping this in mind it is upon this AIPPM to come together –

discuss, deliberate and decide whether these proposed
reforms are at all necessary at the moment for the country.
One Nation, One Election (ONOE) essentially refers to the
practice of holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha
(General Elections) and all the Vidhan Sabhas (State
Elections) across the country. The key objective of this
remains to synchronise electoral cycles to reduce the
frequency of elections and associated costs while improving
governance continuity and administrative efficiency. This is
different to the current electoral cycle in the country,
wherein we have different state elections in different years
and only a few states go to the polls alongside the Lok Sabha
elections.

India is not at all alien to this practice of conducting

simultaneous elections. Ever since the first General Elections
back in 1951 all the way until 1967–India conducted
simultaneous elections. However, after the premature
dissolution of some state assemblies in the late 60’s and
some unstable central governments in the late 70’s this
cycle was eventually disrupted. Since then elections have
been held separately leading to multiple electoral cycles
within a 5-years period.

The idea of returning to simultaneous polls has surfaced

periodically. It was first officially raised by the Election
Commission of India in its 1983 annual report, which noted
the growing strain of near-constant electioneering
Subsequent expert bodies gave the concept serious
consideration.
The Law Commission of India, in its 170th Report (1999)
under Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, observed that frequent
elections create a “cycle of elections every year” and
recommended reverting to the practice of “one election
once in five years for the Lok Sabha and all Legislative
Assemblies” In 2015, a Parliamentary Standing Committee
chaired by Dr. E.M. Sudarshana Natchiappan examined the
“Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections” and
concluded that synchronized elections could reduce
massive expenditures, limit “policy paralysis” from the
Model Code of Conduct, lessen disruption to essential
services, and lighten the burden on administrative and
security forces during elections The committee’s 79th
Report (2015) strongly favoured the concept and urged
consensus-building among political parties.

Detailed proposals were formulated to address the practical

challenges. A Working Paper by NITI Aayog (2017) and the
Law Commission’s Draft Report (2018) both acknowledged
that simultaneous elections would require significant
constitutional amendments and legal changes For instance,
the Law Commission’s draft (headed by Justice B.S.
Chauhan) noted that “simultaneous elections could not be
held within the existing framework of the Constitution” and
that amendments would be needed to provisions like Article
83(2) and 172(1) (which set Lok Sabha and Assembly terms at
five years) to allow shortening or extending terms to
facilitate synchronization It also highlighted the need to
amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and
respective legislative assembly rules The Commission
suggested that any constitutional amendment on this issue
should be ratified by at least half of the states, reflecting the
federal character of the change Despite these hurdles, the
Law Commission draft underscored potential benefits such
as saving public money, improving governance continuity,
and focusing administrative machinery on development
rather than constant electioneering
In recent years, the political momentum for ONOE has grown.
Since 2014, leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi
have vocally advocated simultaneous polls, arguing that the
country is perpetually in election mode under the current
system, which detracts from development work and
governance. The idea received a push in September 2023
when the Government constituted a High-Level Committee
chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind to examine the
implementation of ONOE. The committee was tasked with
outlining a roadmap and examining issues such as whether
constitutional amendments would impinge on the federal
structure. In December 2024, the Minister of State for Law
and Justice introduced the Constitution (129th Amendment)
Bill, 2024 in the Lok Sabha, along with a related bill for Union
Territories, to lay the legal groundwork for simultaneous
elections. These bills, termed by the government as the legal
scaffolding for ONOE, sparked vigorous debate in Parliament
and across the country. As of 2025, the proposal remains
under deliberation, with the Kovind Committee’s
recommendations awaited and consensus among political
stakeholders still evolving.

In summary, One Nation, One Election is a far-reaching

proposal with strong arguments on both sides. Proponents
see it as a path to more efficient governance and cost
savings, harking back to the early decades of the Republic
when simultaneous polls were the norm. They believe India’s
maturing democracy and administrative machinery can
adapt to this change for the greater good. Opponents,
however, caution that the reform could disturb the federal
balance, dilute regional representation, and pose
implementation hazards in the world’s largest democracy.
The debate ultimately hinges on whether the benefits of
synchronisation outweigh the risks to India’s pluralistic,
federal polity. The AIPPM, in deliberating this agenda, must
consider not only the practical logistics and economics of
elections but also the spirit of the Constitution which seeks
to balance national unity with the accommodation of India’s
vast diversity.
Delimitation is the process of redrawing the borders and
definitions of existing constituencies, as an exercise in
ensuring fairness in representation. This was primarily
carried out based on the population metrics derived from the
most recent census. The Delimitation Commission in India is
the main body that is in charge of the process of delimitation
and is composed of retired Supreme Court Judges, State
Election Commissioners and the Chief Election
Commissioner, and members are appointed by the current
President. The Delimitation Commission is also responsible
for determining the number of reserved seats for SC/ST
members. A primary reason that the DCI holds such power is
the inviolable and unchangeable nature of their orders and
decisions, ie, their decisions are final and cannot be
appealed, challenged or overruled by any court. Delimitation
has been carried out multiple times, for a variety of reasons
(the delegates must make sure to address and acknowledge
these reasons in their participation). The most recent
constitution of the DCI was in 2002, post which the 84th
Constitutional Amendment froze the delimitation process,
till the first census post 2026. This decision was cited to be
the results of a promotion of population stabilization
measures. The general consensus of the Indian population at
the current date is upwards of 140 crores and shows no sign
of slowing down. This creates an absolutely appalling lack of
representation for certain states, and a gross
overrepresentation of others. Another major concern is the
vast changes made in other factors of the population,
especially in terms of their demographic details. Metrics
such as Gender, Religion, Human Development, Educational
Standards, Literacy, and unfortunately Caste all hold a non-
insignificant role in Indian Politics, and it may be time that
our electoral processes represent these factors in a direct
manner. As delegates, it is vital that you discuss the major
factors and facets of delimitation, as well as the required
changes or amendments.
The major reading material and contextual understanding
for the Delimitation Commission comes from the
Delimitation Act, 2002, Article 81, 82, 170, and 324. Other
important documents are the 84th, 87th and the 129th
(proposed) Constitutional Amendments. The other
documents also mentioned in previous sections should be
considered mandatory viewing, with delegates and
portfolios keeping in mind the intention and scope, if not the
letter of the law.

The effects of ONOE and similar electoral reforms are

widespread and not limited to just the Lok Sabha and State
elections. Due to India’s vast population and the specific
conditions and non-generalisability of the district level
elections, the panchayati systems as well as local district
bodies generally have internal elections. These are also
affected in specific ways, with lowered visibility being a
primary concern. In the proposed ONOE election cycle,
focusing on local issues becomes both a logistical nightmare,
as well as a dilution of local mandates. The Delimitation
process also causes significant changes to the demographic
constituents of the districts and disrupts existing voting
patterns. The tendency of Indian politics and politicians to
revolve around key vote banks may also cause de facto
gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of
electoral boundaries and territories to favor a particular
political party. The Delimitation Commission and the ECI at
large are ideally autonomous from the larger political sphere
of influence, which should reduce the chances of a particular
shift or unfair practices. However, a chain is only as strong as
its weakest link, which is an apt description of the ECI and
other governmental bodies at large.
 It is difficult to find a single government office or body that
does not have a baseline level of corruption, bribery, and
abuse of political power/influence as part of its standard
operating procedure. The term ‘Chai-Paani’ is incredibly
common, from Passport Offices, to Police Stations. It is no
surprise then, that the average Indian holds a healthy
cynicism for the ‘autonomous’ nature of the ECI and other
similar bodies. Delegates must address these challenges in a
practical manner, not being bogged down by purely
idealistic thinking. It is necessary that those in power
maintain transparency and are accountable to the public, if
not their own conscience.

Compared to the other committees, AIPPM committees

display a knack for being showy, grandiose and larger than
life, much like Indian politicians themselves. This effect is
exacerbated when poetry, metaphors and hyperbole are
considered par for the course. Delegates are encouraged to
embody their portfolios to the utmost, including key
mannerisms, speaking habits, use of literature, etc. For this
purpose, we also allow speeches and other discussion to be
carried out in any Indian language in addition to English, with
the caveat that the delegate must provide a written or typed
translation to those who request it (EB or other Delegates).
Use of traditional poetry (Shayari or other forms) is also
allowed. Delegates are allowed to be colorful in their
expressions of ideas, but must refrain from using colored
language (Name Calling, Use of Casteist terms, etc. will
strictly not be tolerated). Mud-slinging and other forms of
tongue-in-cheek interactions are allowed, with the
restriction of basic decency and the MUN guidelines. If there
are any specific doubts, please raise them either in the
committee orientation, or throughout the committee itself.
With regards to dress code, please follow the guidelines laid
out by the Organising Committee.
1. 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill 2024
2. NITI Aayog 2017 discussion paper
3. 170th Law Commission report

This AIPPM has only ONE Agenda, the EB acknowledges that

the agenda has two focus points, however, since they are so
inter-connected, it is expected that both focus points must
be discussed in committee.

1. Is ONOE the need of the hour for India and is the

constitutional structure accommodating of it?
2. Do benefits, cost-saving and governance outweigh
federal concerns?
3. How would synchronisation be achieved without violating
voter mandates?
4. Is it necessary to lift the freeze on delimitation after
2026?
5. Should population be the sole determinant, or should
other metrics be used?
6. How would practices like gerrymandering and other
misuse be prevented from the delimitation process?
7. How do we prevent further freezes on electoral reforms
and the timegating of important political discussions?