The JPC that is studying the ONOE Bills planned a visit to the Supreme Court on 6 October 2026. The move has triggered a fresh debate on the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the propriety of seeking judges’ views on pending legislation.
Key Developments
- The JPC, chaired by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, sought an informal interaction with the CJI and other judges to discuss simultaneous elections.
- Opposition members, including Kapil Sibal, labelled the proposal “unconstitutional” and warned it blurs the line between law‑making and law‑interpretation.
- The visit was postponed, with Chaudhary citing scheduling conflicts and other commitments.
- Past interactions between parliamentary committees and the Supreme Court (2022‑2023) dealt with judicial administration, not the merits of a bill.
Important Facts
The bills under review are the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Both aim to create a legal framework for holding Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections together. They were introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2024 and referred to the JPC for detailed scrutiny.
Article 121 of the Constitution bars parliamentary discussion on the conduct of Supreme Court judges except in removal proceedings, underscoring judicial independence. Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court, while Articles 73‑74 define executive powers, and Article 79 creates Parliament.
The doctrine of judicial review allows the judiciary to test any law, including the ONOE Bills, if challenged in court.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this controversy helps aspirants answer questions on:
- Constitutional distribution of powers among the three organs of the State (GS2).
- Procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of bills and the role of committees (GS2).
- Limits on interaction between the legislature and the judiciary, especially concerning pending legislation (GS2).
- Historical precedents of parliamentary‑judicial engagements and their constitutional implications (GS2).
Way Forward
To preserve the separation of powers, future committee visits should focus on administrative aspects of the judiciary rather than seeking opinions on the constitutional validity of bills. Any substantive legal challenge to the ONOE Bills will likely be decided by the Supreme Court through the process of judicial review. Meanwhile, Parliament may consider incorporating expert legal opinions in the committee report without direct judicial consultation, thereby respecting constitutional boundaries while ensuring informed law‑making.