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.
The committee chairman, however, has said the proposed visit was not intended to seek the Judges’ views on the Bills, and was meant as a study visit.
What is the principle of separation of powers?
There is no single provision in the Constitution that rigidly defines separation of powers. Instead, it gives different responsibilities to the three organs of the State — the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Parliament, the highest legislative body, makes laws. The executive implements and administers those laws. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and laws, and can examine whether laws passed by Parliament are constitutionally valid.
Several provisions of the Constitution reflect this division. 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 Constitution also protects the independence of the judiciary. Article 121, for example, does not allow any discussion on the conduct of Supreme Court and High Court Judges in Parliament, except during proceedings for their removal. There are similar safeguards for Judges in State legislatures under Article 211.
The Constitution also provides for judicial review, meaning courts can examine whether laws made by Parliament or State legislatures conform to the Constitution. At the same time, the separation is not absolute: the three organs interact with one another in several areas. Parliament makes laws relating to the judiciary, the executive administers the justice system, and courts interpret laws made by Parliament. The basic principle is that one organ should not encroach upon the core constitutional function of another.
What has been the history of parliamentary committees interacting with the Supreme Court?
There is a precedent for parliamentary committees interacting with sitting Supreme Court Judges. In 2022, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, then headed by BJP MP Sushil Kumar Modi, met then Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The discussions related to the e-Courts project and the functioning of the judicial system.
The committee visited the Supreme Court again in March 2023, interacting with CJI Chandrachud and other Judges on the functioning of the National Legal Services Authority and access to free legal aid.
These meetings show there is no general rule preventing parliamentary committees from interacting with sitting Supreme Court Judges. However, the earlier discussions were about the administration of justice and the functioning of the judiciary, not consultations with sitting Judges about the merits or constitutional validity of a Bill being examined by Parliament. That distinction is at the heart of the present controversy.
Conclusion
The controversy, therefore, is not simply about whether MPs can visit the Supreme Court or meet its Judges. The more difficult question is what can appropriately be discussed in such a meeting.
Parliamentary committees are meant to examine Bills closely and can seek views from experts and stakeholders. But the judiciary has a separate constitutional role: if a law is challenged, it has to decide whether the law meets constitutional requirements.
The proposed visit of the panel studying ONOE has brought this boundary into focus. 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. The legislature and judiciary can interact, but each must remain free to perform its own constitutional role.
Published – October 02, 2026 11:46 am IST
