A Motivated Move

A parliamentary committee has learned the hard way that some questions are better left unanswered until the courtroom asks them. The Joint Committee examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 has shelved its proposed visit to the Supreme Court on October 6, where members were to interact with judges on the legislation. Committee chairman PP Chaudhary said the visit was put off because the dates of committee members did not match, adding that he had other commitments. This can be understood in two ways- that the stated reason is scheduling and the recorded reason is objection. At least one member of the joint committee wrote to Chaudhary seeking cancellation. The argument was precise: an interaction with the Chief Justice of India or other sitting judges on the constitutional validity or merits of proposed legislation could raise concerns over the separation of powers and the institutional independence of Parliament and the judiciary. The legislature’s role in considering and making laws should remain distinct from the judiciary’s role in adjudicating their validity. To seek the views of sitting judges on a law that could subsequently come before the Supreme Court would create an avoidable institutional overlap – a consultation that quietly becomes a commitment. Kapil Sibal, an Independent Rajya Sabha member, raised similar objections publicly, calling the proposed visit “unconstitutional” and contrary to the concept of separation of powers. He said he had never come across a parliamentary panel holding an interaction with Supreme Court judges over proposed legislation that could later come before the court for adjudication. He claimed a programme circulated by the Chaudhary-led committee listed a “local study visit” to the Supreme Court on October 6. Kapil’s reasoning was simple: it is Parliament’s prerogative to enact laws, and it is for the judiciary to examine their constitutional validity if challenged. Here, the division is the whole point. The bills themselves seek to provide a framework for holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies – a structural change that will almost certainly be tested in court. Validating it in advance through a friendly conversation with the bench is not scrutiny; instead is the appearance of scrutiny, purchased at the cost of the judiciary’s credibility and the committee’s. There is a legitimate case for the committee’s instinct. Lawmakers drafting a framework of this scale may genuinely want to understand how courts read constitutional questions, and there is nothing wrong with wishing to avoid drafting errors that invite litigation. However, that wish cannot be satisfied by asking sitting judges their views. The moment judges opine, they invite the question of whether they have prejudged the very matter they may later adjudicate. Recusal becomes an issue. So does public confidence in the outcome. The political suspicion surrounding the exercise is therefore not irrational, even if nothing here proves it. A government moving quickly on simultaneous elections before 2029 will be watched for signs that it is steamrolling rather than persuading. In this instance, the committee’s retreat is itself evidence that the objection worked – that institutions, however unevenly, still push back. The validity of One Nation, One Election will be settled by argument and adjudication, not by a courtesy call to the court. The committee did the right thing by stepping back.