Back
Supreme Court Declines Joint Parliamentary Panel's Request to Consult Judges on Simultaneous Polls Bill
In a significant constitutional development, the has declined a proposal from the examining the ‘One Nation, One Election’ bills to hold an interaction with sitting judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The move, which effectively shelved a planned visit to the top court on , sparked sharp criticism from Opposition members, particularly senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP , who termed it “a joke on the Constitution” and a violation of the fundamental principle of .
The JPC, chaired by BJP MP PP Chaudhary, had intended to engage in an informal discussion with the Chief Justice and other judges on the constitutional and practical implications of holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, the proposal ran into immediate resistance, with sources confirming that the Supreme Court itself declined the meeting. Chaudhary later stated that the visit had been “shelved” due to scheduling conflicts, but the underlying constitutional tension remained unresolved.
A Proposal That Stoked Constitutional Controversy
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ initiative, championed by the central government, seeks to synchronise the electoral cycles of the Parliament and all state legislatures to reduce the frequency of polls and cut costs. The bills require amendments to the Constitution and have already stirred debate over federalism, tenure of legislatures, premature dissolution of Houses, and the . The JPC has been holding extensive consultations with political parties, constitutional experts, and former chief justices of India.
Yet, the proposal to meet sitting judges—who might eventually be called upon to adjudicate the of the very law under discussion—was widely seen as crossing a red line. Sibal, a seasoned parliamentarian and former law minister, wrote to Chaudhary demanding the cancellation of the proposed interaction. He argued that while Parliament has the absolute prerogative to enact laws, the judiciary’s role is to test their only after they are passed. “A parliamentary committee briefing sitting judges on a bill, even before finalising its report, has never happened in India’s history,” Sibal emphasised.
’s Stinging Rebuke
Speaking on the floor of the Rajya Sabha and later to the media, Sibal did not mince words. “This is a joke on the Constitution,” he said, expressing shock, disturbance, and dismay. He pointed out that if the amendments are eventually passed, the same judges could be called upon to decide challenges to them. “Parliament makes laws and the judiciary tests their validity,” he reiterated, adding that the interaction would be “unprecedented and unconstitutional.”
Sibal’s objections resonated with concerns over the integrity of the doctrine—a cornerstone of India’s constitutional architecture. He insisted that the JPC’s programme, which included a “local study visit” to the Supreme Court for an informal discussion with the CJI and other judges, was a direct assault on the . “This goes against the principle of among the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary,” he declared.
The Supreme Court’s Firm Stance
While the J
