THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE (‘JPC’) examining the One Nation, One Election (‘ONOE’) Bills has cancelled its ‘informal discussion’ scheduled with the Supreme Court justices on October 6, 2026. The report comes after Members of Parliament had flagged concerns regarding the principle of separation of powers that come with the visit.
While the meeting, per JPC chairman MP PP Chaudhary, was cancelled due to conflict with member’s schedule; reports suggest that the Supreme Court administration also declined the proposal from a parliamentary panel with the court’s secretary general informing the committee that the proposed constitutional amendments could eventually be subject to judicial review.
JPC’s Agenda
On December 17, 2024 the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced in Lok Sabha that sought to amend the Constitution to conduct simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies. Similarly, The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 provides for holding elections to the Union Territory Assemblies as part of the simultaneous elections. The objective of the Bill is to provide a practicable alternative of simultaneous elections for the process that has become expensive and time-consuming. “The imposition of Model Code of Conduct in several parts of the country which are poll bound put on hold the entire development programmes, cause disruption of normal public life, impact the functioning of services and also curtail the involvement of manpower from their core activities for deployment for prolonged periods for election duties,” reads the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution Amendment Bill.
The Bills were then referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee consisting of 39 members JPC for deliberation and examination of its contents and submit a report to both the Houses of Parliament.
The committee has reportedly already consulted several former Chief Justices of India including Justices U U Lalit, Ranjan Gogoi, J S Khehar and D Y Chandrachud. According to Chaudhary, six former CJIs have independently told the Committee that simultaneous elections do not violate the federal structure, democracy or the basic structure of the Constitution.
The visit to Supreme Court
According to reports, an agenda was circulated among the members of JPC regarding an “informal discussion” of over 1.5 hours with the Chief Justice of India and other judges on the issue of simultaneous elections.
However, chairman PP Chaudhary has denied the same and and The Indian Express quoted him for saying, “The study visit was to familiarise the committee members with the Supreme Court including the library as some of the members had never visited the Supreme Court. The proposed visit was not to discuss the Bill with the court. The visit has been put off as there are other programmes scheduled.”
Objections to the visit
Concerns have been raised regarding the said “informal discussion” with Supreme Court judges as the Bill, after becoming a law, may be challenged before the very Court.
Yesterday, independent Rajya Sabha member and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal called the visit contrary to the principle of separation of powers, even more importantly because the Bill raises important issues regarding the polity of the country. He reportedly said,
“So the government will tell Supreme Court judges how good this law is going to be– the law which will likely face petitions on constitutionality. And then the Supreme Court will decide on that. This is unconstitutional. It is contrary to the concept of separation of powers.”
Per The Hindu, in 2022 and 2023, a Parliamentary Committee met with the then sitting judges of the Supreme Court for discussions related to the e-Courts project, the functioning of the judicial system, National Legal Services Authority and access to free legal aid. However, the discussion pertained to the administration of justice.
“I can understand [discussion] on issues of technology… with administrative work and how the government can help [the courts] and what the demands of the court are . But to have a bill that is not cleared, to have the provisions of that bill with the subject matter of briefing to the judges of the Supreme Court is, to my mind, entirely unconstitutional,” Sibal said.
Similarly, member of JPC and Congress MP Randeep Surjewala flagged that the only time the apex court can be consulted is when the President, via Article 143, makes a reference in writing to the court. A JPC, he said, has no such power to consult the Court and that “good sense has prevailed” for the consultation to have been cancelled.
Separation of Powers
The principle of separation of powers, which is a basic structure of the Indian Constitution per Kesvananda Bharati, aims to prevent the concentration of authority in any one entity by dividing power among distinct branches of government.
Montesique, a French jurist, infamously said, “There can be no liberty... there is no liberty if the powers of judging are not separated from the legislative and executive... there would be an end to everything if the same man or the same body... were to exercise those three powers.”
Though the Constitution of India does not define the principle of separation of powers in all its rigidity, and several amendments proposed by KT Shah regarding strict separation in the Constituent Assembly were negated, the Constitution envisages a separation to a degree. For instance, for the purpose of judicial separation from the other two organs, Article 50 lays down separation of judiciary from executive. Additionally, the conduct of the judges cannot be taken about in the parliament per Article 121 (Restriction on discussion in Parliament) and state legislature per Article 211 (Restriction on discussion in the Legislature).
