Back
Former SC Judges Call JPC's Attempt to Meet Supreme Court 'Shocking' on
Former judges of the have strongly criticised the now-cancelled plan of the to meet the Chief Justice of India and other judges regarding the 'One Nation, One Election' bills, calling the move a direct affront to the constitutional principle of . The remarks came during the episode of the 'Dil Se' show, hosted by , where Justices Madan B. Lokur, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and A.K. Patnaik—all former judges of the Supreme Court—voiced their concerns over the proposed informal discussion between the legislature and the judiciary.
The JPC had scheduled a visit to the Supreme Court on , to discuss the , and the . However, the meeting was called off after the Supreme Court declined to receive the delegation. The controversy erupted when Sibal revealed the proposed visit during a press conference on , prompting widespread debate on the propriety of such interactions before a law is enacted and potentially challenged in court.
'Shocking from Both Sides'
Justice Lokur did not mince words when he described the episode as "shocking from both sides." He questioned why the JPC—comprising legislators who must be aware that the 'One Nation, One Election' initiative is almost certain to be challenged before the Supreme Court—would seek an informal discussion with the very judges who might later adjudicate its constitutionality.
"Everyone knows, especially the Supreme Court, that 'One Nation, One Election' is going to be challenged someday,"
Justice Lokur stated. He added that the visit must have been decided in agreement with the top court, since a formal schedule cannot be fixed unilaterally. He left open whether the consultation was limited to the Chief Justice alone or included senior judges.
This sentiment was echoed by Justice A.K. Patnaik, who emphasised the foundational importance of
under the Indian Constitution.
"Parliament can make the law whatever it thinks should be proper, and those laws will be tested when challenged before the Supreme Court,"
he said.
"So, if Parliament, before making a law or its Committee, starts meeting the judges to explain what the law is, that means a litigant is almost going and telling the Courts what their case is. That is not permissible. That will not just affect the
but also the
."
Justice Patnaik's reference to a pre-law meeting as akin to a litigant presenting a case highlights the core ethical violation: judges should not be exposed to arguments or explanations about a bill that they will later judge on its merits. The JPC's role is to deliberate and refine legislation, but engaging the judiciary at this stage blurs the lines between the co-equal branches of government.
: The Judiciary's Role
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia reinforced the judiciary's duty to uphold
, particularly against potential excesses by the legislature and executive.
"It is only the power that can check other powers because it's very difficult for the people to check power all the time. So the executive power can only be checked by the judiciary,"
he observed. This underscores the unique position of the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of
. Any informal communication with the JPC could compromise the court's impartiality and its ability to perform that function without prejudice.
The former judges also raised procedural concerns about how such a visit could have been proposed. Sibal revealed during the show that many judges were not even aware of the proposed delegation. Justice Patnaik explained the usual consultation process:
"When the Chief Justice sits, only one occasion he consults, that is, the morning assembly. He sits with the collegium of the senior judges and then the entire assembly. If he has anything to put, he puts... So these kinds of proposals are given in full assembly, but whether this was given or not, I don't know."
This statement suggests that the decision to allow the JPC visit may not have been taken with the full knowledge of all judges, raising further questions about transparency.
No Reason for Politicians to Meet Judges Outside Formal Settings
Justice Patnaik drew from personal experience to illustrate the need for strict boundaries between the judiciary and the political executive. He revealed that when his son got married, he did not invite a single politician, despite his family's close ties with former Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik.
"Naveen Patnaik is known to my family long back. I had to send a card and tell him, 'Please don't come; it will send a very bad message.' But these days, whenever I go to any marriage happening in a judge's family, all the politicians are there,"
he lamented.
This anecdote ties into broader ethical standards codified in the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and the 2001 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Justice Lokur invoked these principles, stating:
"If judges meet ministers, or go abroad, or meet at a party, it sends a wrong signal. It shouldn't happen. Bangalore principles apply across nations."
The implication is clear: even social interactions between judges and politicians can create a perception of bias, and a formal visit by a parliamentary committee to the Supreme Court would be exponentially more problematic.
A Historical Lesson in Judicial Propriety
Justice Dhulia recounted an incident from the tenure of former Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, as described in the biography
Justice MN Venkatachaliah, the Man and the Judge
by V. Sudhish Pai. When Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao suggested that their relationship should be "cordial" after Justice Venkatachaliah became CJI, the latter reportedly replied:
"That's the last thing we can have. Our relationship can't be cordial because it sends the wrong signal for our democracy. Our relationship is going to be correct and proper, and I will ensure it."
This exchange underscores a crucial distinction: a relationship that is "correct and proper" maintains the institutional distance required for the judiciary to function as an independent check on the other branches. Any suggestion of "cordiality" beyond that could be misinterpreted as favouritism or undue influence. The former judges' reliance on this historical example serves as a reminder that the principle of is not merely a theoretical construct but a practical necessity that has been upheld by the highest judicial offices in the past.
Legal Implications and Impact on the Legal Community
The failed JPC visit has significant implications for the legal profession and the broader constitutional framework. For one, it reaffirms the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between the legislature and the judiciary, especially when legislation that will undoubtedly face constitutional challenge is being considered. Lawyers and legal scholars will likely view the incident as a cautionary tale about the dangers of informal lobbying or pre-decisional influence.
Moreover, the remarks by the former judges may prompt a re-examination of the protocols governing interactions between parliamentary committees and the judiciary. Currently, there are no explicit rules preventing such meetings, but the ethical principles cited by Justice Lokur and Justice Patnaik suggest that they are inherently problematic. The Supreme Court's own code of conduct, as well as the Bangalore Principles, may need to be reinforced to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
For practicing lawyers, the controversy serves as a reminder of the sanctity of judicial independence. Any attempt to influence judges, whether through direct meetings, social events, or other means, undermines the . The legal community must remain vigilant in protecting the judiciary from any form of pressure, whether from the executive, the legislature, or private interests.
Conclusion
The JPC's proposed visit to the Supreme Court was averted, but the episode has exposed a dangerous disregard for the . Former judges have spoken out forcefully, reminding all stakeholders that the judiciary's independence is non-negotiable. As Justice Venkatachaliah pointedly refused a "cordial" relationship with the Prime Minister, today's judges and legislators must also uphold a relationship that is "correct and proper." The 'One Nation, One Election' bills may still be debated in Parliament, but they should be debated without any shadow of judicial involvement until they are formally challenged in a court of law. The former judges' criticisms are a timely warning: any deviation from this principle risks eroding the very foundations of India's constitutional democracy.
