Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Member of Parliament and Senior Advocate P Wilson has defended a controversial proposal by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the ‘One Nation, One Election’ legislation to hold an informal discussion with Supreme Court judges, Bar and Bench reports. The proposed interaction, which was originally scheduled for October 6, was called off on October 1 amid sharp questions regarding institutional propriety and the separation of powers.
The JPC, chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP P P Chaudhary, is currently reviewing the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. These legislative proposals aim to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and union territory legislatures. According to communications exchanged between the JPC and the Chief Justice of India’s office, the panel had initially planned an informal meeting with Chief Justice Surya Kant and other Supreme Court judges before the schedule was shelved.
Institutional Propriety and Legal Objections
The proposed meeting drew immediate pushback from legal and political figures. Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal publicly criticized the move, describing it as contrary to the constitutional separation of powers because the legislation, if enacted, would likely face judicial review before the Supreme Court. Congress MP and committee member Randeep Surjewala also opposed the initiative, stating that Parliament has no constitutional mechanism to consult the apex court on lawmaking outside of a formal presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution, The Indian Express reports.
Defending his role in originating the proposal, Wilson maintained that the objective was to secure an institutional perspective on the practical and constitutional complexities of simultaneous polls rather than to seek judicial endorsement. He emphasized that the DMK and party president M.K. Stalin remain opposed to the ‘One Nation, One Election’ framework itself, clarifying that his suggestion was made purely as part of the committee’s extensive consultation process.
Separation of Powers and Precedents
Addressing criticism over judicial propriety, Wilson argued that the separation of powers does not relegate the organs of the state into isolated administrative silos. He noted that the committee had previously engaged with former Chief Justices of India—including Justices U.U. Lalit, Ranjan Gogoi, J.S. Khehar, and D.Y. Chandrachud—as expert witnesses during its deliberations. Wilson further pointed to historical parliamentary consultations with sitting judges dating back to the drafting of the Constitution in 1948, as well as recent discussions concerning virtual courts.
While respecting the final decision of the Chief Justice and other judges not to proceed with the October 6 interaction, Wilson criticized what he termed political objections raised by vested interests. The JPC continues its examination of the proposed electoral reforms, which follow recommendations issued by a high-level committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind.