DMK MP defends panel’s plan for simultaneous polls in meeting CJI

P. Wilson. File | Photo credit: Sathyamoorthy M.

Defending the study tour to India’s Supreme Court, DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson, a member of Parliament’s joint committee that reviews legislation on concurrent polls, wrote in a letter to panel chairman PP Chaudhary on Monday (5 October 2026) that seeking the opinions of the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court judges was not “unconstitutional”.

The letter follows Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal’s claim on Thursday (October 1) that the visit would be unconstitutional and against the separation of powers. Mr. Sibal termed the move as unprecedented. The study trip was eventually cancelled.

Ahead of the DMK’s opposition to simultaneous polls, Mr Wilson said his remarks in the letter were limited to the issue of power-sharing only. Mr Wilson, who played a central role in organizing the study tour, said the meeting was called off due to political objections raised by “vested interests”.

Separation of powers, he wrote, does not mean that the three bodies operate in watertight compartments. “The Constitution does not establish three isolated islands,” he said. Asking for informal opinions is not the same as seeking a court ruling, and the Committee did not ask judges to confirm or pre-judge the bill.

He cited March 1948, when Federal Court judges and Supreme Court chief justices met to formulate views on a draft constitution. He also pointed to Article 143, under which the President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance, and said the provision could not be upheld if the argument to the contrary prevailed.

Citing the precedent of the 2022 meeting of the Parliamentary Panel on Law and Justice with the then CJI NV Ramana and Justice DY Chandrachud and then CJI Chandrachud with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna on March 23, 2023, Mr Wilson said the claim that such a meeting was unheard of was wrong.

The tour, like other consultations the panel has held, was also aimed at hearing all relevant perspectives, Mr Wilson said.

“Therefore, our efforts have been made in good faith with one goal in mind: to hear every relevant point of view, to address every legitimate concern, and to ensure that the constitutional amendment, if enacted, is equally carefully considered and constitutionally valid,” the letter said.

Mr. Wilson’s letter was entered by the Chairman of the Commission.

The panel met with two groups — media personalities and economists — on Monday (October 5, 2026). Rajya Sabha MP Sagarika Ghose objected to the inclusion of Sudhir Chaudhary, chief anchor of state-run Doordarshan.

The AIMTC leader wrote to Chairman PP Chaudhary and asked what written or broadcast work Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary had done on the subject to qualify him to assist the panel. She also cited a 2012 extortion case against him for which he was kept in judicial custody.

Ms Ghose acknowledged the chairman’s view that time in custody did not automatically disqualify a person from appearing, but said witnesses should be selected on the basis of “proven expertise and a credible record”. She asked that the criteria for selecting media witnesses be shared with members before any future meeting.

Published – 5 Oct 2026 22:54 IST