One Nation, One Election: DMK's P Wilson defends JPC proposal to meet Supreme Court judges

The meeting proposed by Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the One Nation, One Election Bills with Supreme Court judges was done based on a proposal by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party MP, JPC member and Senior Advocate P Wilson.

The proposed meeting was called off amid objections over the propriety of sitting judges discussing legislation that could later come before the Court for judicial review.

However, Wilson has now defended the proposal for such a meeting.

"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," said Wilson in his statement.

The JPC is chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP PP Chaudhary. It had proposed an interaction with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and other Supreme Court judges.

The meeting was part of the JPC's consultations on the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The Bills seek to provide for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and Union Territory legislatures.

The Supreme Court had initially agreed to the interaction, with the offices of the JPC and the CJI exchanging communications on the proposed delegation. The meeting was subsequently called off on October 1, after concerns were raised about sitting judges discussing legislation that could potentially come before the Court.

Notably, the proposal had drawn public criticism from Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who questioned its constitutional propriety.

"This is a joke on the Constitution," said Sibal.

Wilson, however, has stated that his proposal should not be construed as support for One Nation, One Election. The DMK and its president MK Stalin have consistently opposed the proposal, said Wilson.

He contended that the suggestion was made as part of the JPC's broader consultation process, which has involved legislators, Speakers of State Assemblies, former Chief Election Commissioners, constitutional experts, administrators and former Chief Justices of India.

According to Wilson, the purpose was to obtain the judiciary's institutional perspective on the constitutional and practical implications of the proposed reform, rather than seek judicial endorsement of the Bills.

He rejected the argument that such consultation was inherently unconstitutional, saying,

"If someone disagrees with the proposed interaction on grounds of judicial propriety, that is a legitimate institutional position which can be respectfully considered. But to go further and declare that the very act of a Parliamentary Committee seeking the views of judges in their individual capacity is unconstitutional is a completely different proposition. Where is the constitutional prohibition?"

Wilson also rejected the argument that the interaction would violate the separation of powers.

"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. The Constitution does not establish three isolated islands," said Wilson.

He argued that seeking informal views from judges during the legislative process was different from asking the Supreme Court to adjudicate upon the Bills' constitutional validity.

Wilson cited previous parliamentary interactions with sitting judges, including meetings concerning virtual courts and the National Legal Services Authority. He also referred to consultations with judges during the drafting of the Constitution in 1948.

Wilson said he respected the decision of the CJI and other judges not to proceed with the interaction. At the same time, he maintained that his proposal was constitutionally permissible.

"Our effort was therefore made in good faith, with one objective: to hear every relevant perspective, address every legitimate concern and ensure that the constitutional amendment, if enacted, is as carefully considered and constitutionally valid. That I believe is the mandate of this Committee," said Wilson.