{"id":32950,"date":"2026-10-05T23:23:34","date_gmt":"2026-10-05T23:23:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=32950"},"modified":"2026-10-05T23:23:34","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T23:23:34","slug":"supreme-court-supreme-court-agreed-to-meet-then-changed-mind-onoe-panel-chief-india-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=32950","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court: Supreme Court agreed to meet, then changed mind: ONOE panel chief | India News"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Supreme<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The idea of an informal meeting with SC judges on simultaneous polls was first mooted by DMK MP and senior advocate P Wilson<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court<\/a> 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.“<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\n