top of page

Doors Shut: Supreme Court Turns Down 'Informal Chat' With One Nation One Election Panel

Writer: Devansh Purohit
Devansh Purohit
Oct 2
2 min read

The Supreme Court has reportedly declined the Joint Parliamentary Committee's proposal to meet the CJI and judges on October 6 for informal talks on 'One Nation, One Election', sources said. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had called the move a violation of separation of powers, adding that no such meeting had ever occurred. The Committee, chaired by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, is examining the 129th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.



The Meeting That Won't Happen

The proposed meeting between the Joint Parliamentary Committee on 'One Nation, One Election' and Supreme Court judges will not take place, sources said. The Committee had earlier proposed to meet the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court judges on October 6 for "informal discussions" on simultaneous elections. According to sources, the Supreme Court has declined the proposal.


Sibal Calls It a Separation of Powers Breach

Earlier the same day, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal criticised the Committee's move at a press conference. He said that meeting the Supreme Court judges would violate the separation of powers. Sibal also pointed out that such a meeting had never happened in the history of the country.


What Is the Committee Examining?

The Joint Parliamentary Committee is examining two Bills: the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Both Bills seek to facilitate simultaneous elections across the country.


Who Has the Committee Consulted So Far?

The Committee is headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary. It has been holding consultations with political parties, legislators, constitutional experts and other stakeholders as part of its examination of the two Bills. It has previously stated that it has also consulted former Chief Justices of India, former Supreme Court judges and other legal experts on the constitutional implications of simultaneous elections.


Comments


bottom of page