New Delhi: Former Chief Justices of India D.Y.Chandrachud and J.S.Khehar told a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) Friday that while simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and the state assemblies “may not” violate the basic structure of the Constitution, authorising the Election Commission (EC) to decide the poll schedule without checks would fall short of legality.
Members of the JPC examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, widely known as the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bill, told ThePrint that Khehar appeared more doubtful about the legality and constitutionality of the concept than Chandrachud.
“The opinion of the former CJIs was that the bill may get over the bar of basic structure, but it may fall short of legality and constitutionality in other aspects. While Justice Khehar was more forthright, Justice Chandrachud was guarded,” said an Opposition MP who attended the meeting that lasted over five hours in the Parliament annexe complex.
The MP said that Justice Khehar said that the text in the Bill needed to be revised and made more precise as several clauses are “vaguely worded”. Justice Chandrachud is also learnt to have said that giving more powers to the EC could disturb constitutional balance.
Previously, in his written submission to the JPC, Chandrachud had raised concern over the “sweeping powers” granted to the EC in the proposed constitutional amendment law “without laying down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretion”.
However, he added that staggered elections were not an immutable feature of the Constitution, a view he shared during the meeting of the committee Friday as well.
“The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution’s basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature,” the former CJI stated in his written submission.
The Bill proposes an amendment in Article 172 of the Constitution (which lays down the duration and dissolution of state legislative assemblies) to allow the curtailment or extension of state assemblies for alignment of state polls with the general elections. Both the former CJIs are learnt to have recommended the need to have parliamentary oversight to prevent misuse of the provision by the EC.
“In fact, Justice Khehar said these questions and doubts assume more significance in light of the ongoing conversation about the supposed biased nature of the EC,” another MP said.
Previously, two more CJIs—Justices U.U.Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi—have appeared before the committee. Appearing before the 39-member committee, former CJI Gogoi had also raised questions on the Constitutional validity of certain provisions in the Bill.
Similarly, former CJI Lalit had also cautioned, in his submission before the panel, that curtailing the terms of the state assemblies to make the ONOE possible may not stand legal scrutiny.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: ‘Worst attack’ on Constitution, says Oppn after meeting EC over voter verification drive in Bihar
