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.
The proposed visit was subsequently put off. Mr. The proposed interaction had already triggered objections from Opposition members.
Chaudhary said the dates of committee members did not match, and that he had other commitments.
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 While parliamentary committees have interacted with sitting Judges in the past.
The proposed visit of the panel studying ONOE has brought this boundary into focus. The legislature and judiciary can interact, but each must remain free to perform its own constitutional role.
The committee chairman has said the proposed visit was only a study visit, while Opposition members questioned the reference to a discussion with sitting Judges on simultaneous elections.
Article 79 establishes Parliament, comprising the President, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Articles 73 and 74 deal with the executive power of the Union and the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court of India.
The Opposition, therefore, argued that asking sitting Judges for their views on the proposed law would blur this distinction. The Opposition’s objection is not to parliamentary committees visiting the Supreme Court or interacting with Judges. 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. Several provisions of the Constitution reflect this division.
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 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.
