![\"\u2018Would](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-134705732,imgsize-62838,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/134705732.jpg\" "\\"\u2018Would")
<\/div>\nThe proposed interaction was informal, Chaudhary said, adding that there was no need to \u201cblow it out of proportion\u201d. (File photo)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n NEW DELHI: ‘One nation, one election’ JPC chief and BJP MP PP Chaudhary on Monday gave a clarification amid the, now cancelled, proposed meeting of the parliamentary panel with Supreme Court<\/a> judges, saying that it was SC that called the meeting and then cancelled it.Chaudhary claimed that Supreme Court had set the meeting for October 6 at 4.30 PM via an email sent to the committee\u2019s Director on September 22.\u201cMany members were not aware that the Supreme Court itself had scheduled the meeting. Through an email dated the 22nd, the Supreme Court informed our Director that it had fixed the meeting for the 6th at 4:30 PM. When the Supreme Court later cancelled the meeting, we also cancelled it and issued a notice to all the members. Since the meeting had initially been scheduled by the Supreme Court, we had informed all members accordingly,\u201d he added, as quoted by ANI.Chaudhary further said the proposed interaction was informal and there was no reason to attach undue significance to it. He also pointed to previous instances of discussions between parliamentary committees and the judiciary. “The committee and the Supreme Court also said that if it is not appropriate, this issue should not be escalated. If both sides can hold a discussion, that is fine; if not, that is fine as well. There is no need to lay so much stress on this matter or blow it out of proportion,” he said, speaking to ANI after the JPC meeting, held earlier in the day.He cited previous committee proceedings to argue that such interactions were not unprecedented.“Earlier, regarding committee matters like the Education Bill and several others, as Mr Wilson stated, he had advised the committee to discuss matters with them. There are several past precedents of holding discussions with the Supreme Court. So there was nothing wrong with it either. And if the Supreme Court did not consider it appropriate, there is no issue at all,” Chaudhary said.Further talking about the release of its report, he added, “Look, the process is currently ongoing; we are hearing the stakeholders. Once all members convey that there is no further need to hear anyone, and after gathering the opinions of all the members, we will submit the report,.”The clarification came after former Union minister and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal<\/a> criticised the proposed interaction, calling it “unconstitutional”. Sibal had said the separation of powers under the Constitution meant that courts, rather than Parliament, determine the constitutionality of legislation.“I have never heard in the history of India till date that a parliamentary group holds a meeting in the Supreme Court regarding a law (One Nation One Election<\/a>), to tell the Supreme Court judges what this law actually is. I am talking about ‘One Nation One Election’… I have never heard of such a thing in my legal career. This is unconstitutional,” Sibal said at a press conference.The JPC is examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which seek to provide the statutory framework for synchronising elections to the Lok Sabha, state assemblies and Union Territory assemblies.<\/p>\n Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\n