Supreme Court Called Off Meeting With Simultaneous Polls Panel

New Delhi: Joint Parliamentary Committee chairman P.P. Chaudhary on Monday said the Supreme Court had initially scheduled an “informal interaction” with the panel on simultaneous elections but later called it off after concluding that such a meeting would not be appropriate.

According to sources, the meeting was cancelled as the proposed constitutional amendment could eventually come up for judicial review before the Supreme Court and it was, therefore, considered undesirable to discuss the issue on the administrative side.

Chaudhary, a senior BJP MP, defended the panel’s decision to seek consultations with Supreme Court judges, saying there were precedents for such interactions dating back to the 1950s.

The meeting between the Joint Committee on the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and Supreme Court judges had been scheduled for October 6 but was later cancelled.

“There have been precedents of (Parliamentary) committees interacting with Supreme Court judges because of their expertise and knowledge of constitutional matters,” Chaudhary told reporters after a meeting of the panel.

He said Supreme Court officials had sent an email to the Parliament secretariat on September 22 stating that the meeting was fixed for October 6 at 4.30 pm. The Law Ministry had also sent relevant material to the Supreme Court.

“After about eight or nine days, some issues were raised publicly. Later, the Supreme Court cancelled the meeting and we also cancelled it and informed the members.

“If the Supreme Court felt it was not appropriate, there was no need to pursue the matter. There was no need to create or give further publicity to the issue,” he said.

Giving a chronology, sources said the Lok Sabha Secretariat on September 18 wrote to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court conveying the committee’s desire to undertake a “local study visit” to the apex court for “informal discussions” with the CJI and other judges on simultaneous elections after obtaining the Lok Sabha Speaker’s approval.

On September 22, the Registrar-cum-PPS to the CJI informed the committee that the informal discussion with the CJI and other judges had been scheduled for October 6 at 4.30 pm.

The following day, the Lok Sabha Secretariat confirmed the visit through an office memorandum and arrangements were made for about 35 members and six officers.

On September 28, the legislative department forwarded the relevant letter and study-visit documents to the Supreme Court Secretary General.

On October 1, the Supreme Court Secretary General’s secretariat informed the panel that the proposal had been discussed among senior judges and that, since the proposed constitutional amendment could become the subject of judicial review, it might not be expedient or desirable to discuss the issue on the administrative side.

The meeting was subsequently cancelled. The Lok Sabha Secretariat also formally informed the court and panel members that the October 6 visit had been called off.

Sources said the idea of holding “informal discussions” with Supreme Court judges was first proposed by DMK MP P. Wilson.

In a seven-page letter to the committee, Wilson said he had suggested that, as part of broad-based consultations, the panel hear the views of the CJI and other Supreme Court judges through a study tour.

He said that after obtaining permission from the competent authority, the matter was taken up through the Secretary General of the Supreme Court and communications were exchanged between the two institutions.

“Unfortunately, due to political objections surrounding this meeting, it was decided to call off the meeting because of unnecessary and unfortunate circumstances caused by vested interests,” Wilson said.

“With great pain and sadness, I place on record that this Committee has lost the valuable opportunity to interact with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and some judges of the Supreme Court,” he added.

Wilson rejected arguments that a parliamentary panel could not interact with sitting Supreme Court judges because they might later have to examine the legislation’s constitutional validity.

He also disagreed with the contention that such an interaction would violate the separation of powers.

“Separation of powers is a fundamental Constitutional principle. But separation of powers does not mean the three organs of the State must operate in watertight compartments, never communicate with one another or never exchange institutional perspectives,” he said.

Wilson said informal suggestions from judges would not amount to seeking an adjudication from the Supreme Court and would not prevent constitutional courts from subsequently hearing challenges to the law, if enacted.