Parliamentary panel studying simultaneous elections proposed Supreme Court visit: Why is separation of powers an issue?

The proposed visit of the Joint Parliamentary Committee examining the 'One Nation, One Election' Bills to the Supreme Court has raised questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary.

While parliamentary committees have interacted with sitting Judges in the past, the Opposition has objected to Judges being consulted on the merits or constitutional validity of a Bill that could later come before the Supreme Court.

The story so far

The Joint Parliamentary Committee is examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The Bills seek to provide a framework for holding elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies together. They were introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2024 and referred to the Joint Committee for detailed examination.

The committee, headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, had proposed a visit to the Supreme Court on October 6, 2026. The programme mentioned an informal interaction with the Chief Justice of India and other Judges on simultaneous elections.

The proposed visit was subsequently put off. Mr. Chaudhary said the dates of committee members did not match, and that he had other commitments. The proposed interaction had already triggered objections from Opposition members.

The Opposition's objection

The Opposition's objection is not to parliamentary committees visiting the Supreme Court or interacting with Judges. The concern is about what the Judges were expected to discuss — whether sitting Supreme Court Judges should be asked for their views on legislation that Parliament is considering, and which could, after becoming law, be challenged before the Supreme Court.

Independent Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal called the proposed interaction "unconstitutional," and said Parliament has the power to make laws, while the judiciary has the power to examine their constitutional validity. The argument is straightforward: Parliament debates and passes a law, and if that law is challenged, the courts decide whether it is in accordance with the Constitution. The Opposition, therefore, argued that asking sitting Judges for their views on the proposed law would blur this distinction.