SC first fixed then cancelled ONOE meeting JPC chief

PP Chaudhary, Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on simultaneous elections, said on Monday that the Supreme Court had initially scheduled an “informal interaction” with the panel following its request for a meeting with the judges but later called it off as it felt that it was “not appropriate”.

According to sources, the decision on the meeting, mooted by an Opposition DMK MP, came as it was felt that the proposed constitutional amendment might become a subject matter of judicial review before the Supreme Court and, therefore, it was not desirable to discuss the issue on the administrative side.

However, Chaudhary, who is a senior BJP MP, defended the panel’s decision to consult the Supreme Court judges, saying there were such precedents in 1950s, but did not elaborate further.
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 the Supreme Court judges was fixed for October 6 but 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 here.

He said an email was sent to the Parliament secretariat by the officials of the Supreme Court on September 22, stating that a meeting was fixed at the Supreme Court on October 6 at 4.30 pm and the Law Ministry also sent the 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 of the events, sources said, on September 18, the Lok Sabha Secretariat first 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 Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other Judges on simultaneous elections, after getting approval of the Lok Sabha Speaker.

On September 22, the Registrar-cum-PPS to the CJI informed the committee that the informal discussion with the CJI and other judges was scheduled for October 6 at 4:30 pm.
The following day, the Lok Sabha secretariat confirmed the local study visit through an office memorandum and arrangements were made for the visit of about 35 members and six officers.
On September 28, the legislative department forwarded the relevant letter and study visit documents to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.

On October 1, the Supreme Court Secretary General’s secretariat informed that the proposal had been discussed among the senior Judges and it was conveyed that, since the proposed constitutional amendment might become a subject matter of judicial review before the Supreme Court, it might not be expedient or desirable to discuss the issue on the administrative side.
The proposed meeting was accordingly cancelled, sources said, adding that on the same day, the Lok Sabha Secretariat issued an office memorandum to the Supreme Court and a letter to the panel members formally conveying the cancellation of the scheduled “local study visit” of October 6.

The sources said that the idea of the “informal discussions” with the Supreme Court judges was first mooted by opposition DMK MP P Wilson.
The DMK MP, through a seven-page letter to the committee, clarified that in the spirit of broad-based consultation, he had suggested that the panel hear the views of the present CJI and other judges of the Supreme Court through a study tour.

Wilson said that after obtaining permission from the competent authority, he took up the issue through the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
“After obtaining the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, I informed the Chairman, who, through his office, sought necessary permission from the competent authority,” he said.
Thereafter, the DMK MP said, the Lok Sabha secretariat approached the office of the CJI. The two offices exchanged communications and acceptance was conveyed and acknowledged. The names of the members of the proposed delegation were discussed, and the meeting was being worked out.

“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.
“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 said.

Wilson said he would like to clarify certain things because several arguments, some publicly, are “fundamentally flawed”.

He said some argue that a JPC cannot meet sitting Supreme Court judges because those same judges may one day be called upon to examine the legislation’s constitutional validity.
The DMK MP said another argument is that such an interaction would violate the separation of powers. There is yet another argument that such a meeting is unprecedented and constitutionally impermissible.

“I respectfully disagree with these arguments. 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 the Constitution does not establish three isolated islands -- the legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, the judiciary reviews, interprets and adjudicates upon them, but constitutional governance necessarily involves institutional interaction, consultation and dialogue at appropriate stages.

     “Seeking informal views of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and other judges is not the same as seeking adjudication from the Supreme Court of India. We are not asking the views of the Supreme Court.

     “We are asking for their views in their individual capacity, as stakeholders in democracy. We were asking for their institutional perspective, in their individual capacity, informally, on a constitutional reform of enormous significance,” he said in the clarification, seen by PTI.

     The DMK leader said that to assume that because some judges gave suggestions to this Committee, future judges will not be able to hear the challenge to this bill undermines the ability and integrity of the judiciary.

     “The Hon’ble CJI & Hon’ble Judges giving their suggestions and inputs to this Committee does not preclude constitutional courts from hearing challenges to the legislation, if and when enacted,” he said.