NEW DELHI: A DMK MP on Friday said that it was he who suggested that the Joint Parliamentary Committee examining a Bill on simultaneous elections should hear the views of the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court, and the opinions of those who opposed such a meeting were “fundamentally flawed”.

P Wilson, the Rajya Sabha MP from Tamil Nadu, said the Joint Committee on the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, travelled to different parts of India and interacted with legislators, Assembly speakers, political representatives, former chief election commissioners, constitutional experts, administrators, and ex-chief justices of India, among several other stakeholders.

The purpose of these consultations was simple: to hear every relevant perspective and ensure the Bill is examined comprehensively, transparently, and with a strong constitutional foundation, he said.

“Every institution has a different perspective. Legislators will look at the federal and democratic implications. Election commissioners will bring their experience of conducting elections. Administrators can speak about the practical and logistical consequences. Constitutional experts can examine the legal architecture. Former chief justices can provide valuable insights into constitutional questions and institutional implications,” Wilson said.

That is precisely why the Committee has been speaking to everyone and the objective is to identify the constitutional, legal, financial, administrative and practical consequences of the proposed reform and to see whether the Bill can be strengthened by addressing those concerns, the DMK MP said.

“That is the job of a Parliamentary committee. In this spirit of broad-based consultation, I suggested that this Committee hear the views of the present Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court of his choosing through a study tour,” Wilson said in a seven-page clarification submitted to the panel.

The meeting between the JPC and the Supreme Court judges was fixed for October 6 before it was cancelled.

Sources said that on October 1, the Supreme Court secretary general's secretariat informed the Lok Sabha secretariat that the proposal for informal consultations between the Supreme Court judges and the panel members had been discussed among senior judges and it was conveyed that, since the proposed constitutional amendment might become a subject matter of judicial review before the Supreme Court, it might not be expedient or desirable to discuss the issue on the administrative side.

Wilson said that due to political objections surrounding this meeting, “unfortunately”, it was decided to call it off because of “unnecessary and unfortunate circumstances caused by vested interests”.

“With great pain and sadness, I place on record that this Committee has lost the valuable opportunity to interact with the Chief Justice of India and some judges of the Supreme Court. But I want to clarify certain things because several arguments, some publicly, are fundamentally flawed,” he said.

The DMK MP said some argue that a JPC cannot meet sitting Supreme Court judges because those same judges may one day be called upon to examine the legislation's constitutional validity.

He said another argument was that such an interaction would violate the separation of powers. There was yet another argument that such a meeting was unprecedented and constitutionally impermissible.

“I respectfully disagree with these arguments,” he said.

Wilson said separation of powers is a fundamental Constitutional principle, but 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. The legislature makes laws. The executive implements them. The judiciary reviews, interprets and adjudicates upon them. But constitutional governance necessarily involves institutional interaction, consultation and dialogue at appropriate stages,” he said.

The Rajya Sabha MP said seeking informal views of the Chief Justice of India and other judges was not the same as seeking adjudication from the Supreme Court.

“We are not asking the views of the Supreme Court. We are asking for their (judges’) views in their individual capacity, as stakeholders in democracy. We are asking for their institutional perspective, in their individual capacity, informally, on a constitutional reform of enormous significance.

“To assume that because some judges gave suggestions to this Committee, future judges will not be able to hear challenges to this Bill undermines the ability and integrity of the judiciary. The Hon'ble CJI and Hon'ble Judges giving their suggestions and inputs to this Committee does not preclude constitutional courts from hearing challenges to the legislation, if and when enacted,” he argued.

Wilson also said that when the draft Constitution was prepared, it was circulated widely, and those judges who later became the first judges of the Supreme Court and the chief justices of the various high courts were specifically invited to offer their opinions.

“In March 1948, the judges of the Federal Court and the Chief Justices of the High Courts even met to formulate their collective views on the Draft Constitution,” he said in the clarification.