Supreme Court: Supreme Court agreed to meet, then changed mind: ONOE panel chief | India News
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court had initially fixed a schedule for an “informal interaction” with members of the Parliament committee examining the bill for simultaneous elections, the panel’s chairperson, P P Chaudhary, told reporters Monday, stating that the SC later found it “not appropriate” and called it off, apparently after some opposition MPs criticised the proposed meeting.He, however, defended the proposal, saying there were precedents of parliamentary committees interacting with SC judges because of their expertise and knowledge of constitutional matters.Sources said the idea to meet SC judges was first mooted by DMK MP P Wilson, a senior advocate, and was informally deliberated within the committee before it took this up with the SC.The meeting was fixed for October 6 but the SC secretary general last week informed the committee of the cancellation.“They (senior SC judges) are of the opinion that as the proposed amendment might become a subject matter of judicial review before the Supreme Court, it may not be expedient or desirable to discuss the issue on the administrative side. The proposed meeting is accordingly cancelled,” the secretary general said.Chaudhary said an email was sent to the Parliament secretariat by SC officials on September 22, stating that a meeting had been fixed on October 6 at 4.30 pm and the law ministry also sent the relevant material to the court. “After about eight or nine days, some issues were raised publicly. Later, SC cancelled the meeting. If SC felt it was not appropriate, there was no need to pursue the matter. There was no need to create or give further publicity to the issue.“
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Sources said, on September 18, the Lok Sabha secretariat first wrote to the SC secretary general, conveying the committee’s desire to undertake a “local study visit” for “informal discussions” with the CJI and other judges on simultaneous elections.Wilson, through a seven-page letter to the committee, defended the proposal and said in the spirit of broad-based consultation, he had suggested that the panel hear the views of the CJI and other judges. “Unfortunately, due to political objections surrounding this meeting, it was decided to call off the meeting because of unnecessary and unfortunate circumstances caused by vested interests,” he said. Opposition MPs, including senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had slammed the proposed meeting.
