सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने वन नेशन वन इलेक्शन समिति के सीजेआई एवं अन्य जजों के साथ बैठक प्रस्ताव को खारिज किया

SC declines One Nation One Election panel's proposal to interact with CJI Kant, others

Legal experts voiced alarm over the proposed interactions, marking significant discussions around the constitutional implications of upcoming electoral changes.

The Supreme Court administration on Thursday declined a proposal from a parliamentary panel, examining bills aimed at rolling out simultaneous elections, to interact with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and other sitting judges, with the court’s secretary general informing the committee that the proposed constitutional amendments could eventually be subject to judicial review.

People aware of the matter said that the apex court secretary general’s office, in a communication sent to the joint committee of Parliament on Thursday afternoon, stated that the proposal for an informal discussion with the CJI and other judges on simultaneous elections was discussed among the Supreme Court’s senior judges.

The communication, people cited above said, stated that as the proposed amendment might become a subject of judicial review before the Supreme Court, it may not be expedient or desirable to discuss the issue on the administrative side. The proposed meeting was accordingly “cancelled.”

The decision followed a discussion between CJI Surya Kant and some senior judges, after which the CJI directed that the proposed interaction should not proceed, the people cited above said.

The joint committee chairman and Bharatiya Janata Party member PP Chaudhary told news agency PTI that the visit was put off as the dates of committee members did not match. “I also have other commitments to attend to,” he told the agency.

Also Read | Plea seeks recall of SC order on challenge to CEC appointment law

The communication from the secretary general’s office came even as earlier in the day, independent Rajya Sabha member and senior advocate Kapil Sibal publicly objected to the proposed visit, describing it as “unconstitutional” and contrary to the principle of separation of powers.

The joint committee, headed by Chaudhary, had proposed a visit to the Supreme Court on October 6 as part of its consultations on the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The programme described the visit as a “local study visit” and proposed an informal discussion with the CJI and other judges on simultaneous elections.

The developments came against the backdrop of growing concern over the propriety of a parliamentary committee discussing the merits or constitutional implications of proposed legislation with sitting Supreme Court judges when the legislation could eventually come before the court for adjudication.

Sibal, at a press conference on Thursday, said he was “shocked” by the proposed interaction and questioned how the judiciary could accept an invitation from a parliamentary committee when the bills raised issues of “fundamental importance to the polity of this country” and to the working of the Constitution.

Also Read | Supreme Court to hear plea raising doubts over CEC Gyanesh Kumar's decisions next week

“How did the judiciary accept that invitation from the joint committee, knowing full well that this bill raises issues of fundamental importance to the polity of this country, fundamental issues relating to the working of our Constitution?” Sibal asked.

He said Parliament has the prerogative to introduce and consider legislation, with a parliamentary committee examining a bill and submitting its report to the House. Parliament would thereafter debate and vote on the legislation, while its constitutional validity, if challenged, would be considered by the judiciary.

Sibal said he had never encountered an instance in the country’s history of a parliamentary panel holding an interaction with sitting Supreme Court judges on legislation that could subsequently be challenged before the court.

The Supreme Court’s communication, however, confined the reason for cancelling the interaction to the view expressed by the CJI and senior judges that discussing the issue on the administrative side would not be “expedient or desirable” since the proposed amendment might become a subject matter of judicial review.

The joint committee is examining two bills that seek to facilitate simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes, among other things, insertion of a new Article 82A dealing with simultaneous elections and amendments to Articles 83, 172 and 327. The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes consequential changes to facilitate simultaneous elections in the Union territories as well.

Also Read | SC asks Election Commission to resolve TMC factions’ symbol row within 3 months

Both bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2024 and referred to the joint committee for examination. The committee comprises members from both Houses and is headed by Chaudhary.

The committee has conducted consultations with political parties, legislators, constitutional experts and other stakeholders on the proposed electoral changes. It has also consulted former Chief Justices of India, former Supreme Court judges and other legal experts on the constitutional questions surrounding simultaneous elections.

The proposal, commonly described as “One Nation, One Election”, seeks to align elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The government has argued that simultaneous elections would reduce the frequency and cost of elections and provide greater continuity for governance, while Opposition parties and other critics have raised concerns relating to democratic accountability, federalism and the constitutional implications of synchronising the terms of elected legislatures.

- ABOUT THE AUTHORUtkarsh AnandUtkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry. He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy. His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments. He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact. Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses. His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms. A Chevening South Asia Journalism Programme Fellow, Utkarsh regularly writes analyses on the judiciary and constitutional issues, and his reporting is widely followed by lawyers, judges, policymakers, academics and readers seeking clarity on India's evolving legal landscape.Read More

Powered by Nyaya 247 News