Latest news with #Khehar
Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Joint polls constitutional, say ex-CJIs, question sweeping powers to EC in Bill
Former Chief Justices of India Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud, who appeared Friday before the Joint Committee of Parliament on the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) Bill, are learnt to have said that the Bill does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. However, they were said to have underlined that the Bill in its present form may not pass the Constitution muster, especially with regard to the sweeping powers given to the Election Commission of India. Earlier, former CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, who too appeared before the panel, had raised the issue of possible legal challenges to the Bill. Justices Khehar and Chandrachud had almost a five-hour-long discussion with the committee. They were said to have not only gone through the entire Bill, provision by provision, but also discussed the larger issues of constitutional philosophy, morality and politics associated with the Bill. Later, committee chairperson P P Chaudhary said, 'It was a rich discussion. We got valuable inputs and many issues that members had were clarified. Justice Khehar told the members that it was a golden opportunity for nation-building and that they should avail it as they will not get it back again.' Parliamentary committee proceedings are privileged, and details of exchanges between members during meetings are not made public. Issues related to the Bill being silent on situations such as imposition of Emergency in a state or whether elections could be forced even if an Assembly had just three months of tenure left at the time of dissolution also came up. On whether simultaneous elections would lead to dilution of local issues, Justice Chandrachud, it is learnt, said the exact opposite might happen too. He was said to have cited the example of the language issue, a regional issue with the potential to become a national voting agenda in simultaneous polls. In the context of the powers given to the ECI and the Bill being silent on many electoral situations, Justice Chandrachud flagged legal challenges and proposed some redrafting of the Bill. It is learnt he suggested that it was time to give thought to some constraints on the no-confidence motion provision to ensure some stability. This, he suggested, could be done by just amending the rules of the House, requiring no constitutional amendment. He was said to have told the committee that asynchronous (non-simultaneous) elections were not held as a criteria of a free and fair election and were not part of the basic structure. In fact, the constitutional scheme early in the history of the republic was to hold simultaneous elections, he pointed out. Justice Khehar too gave a similar opinion. On the proposed Article 82A (1), he observed that the clause only fixed the appointed date, which would be the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha, and brought about no change in the conduct of election or tenure of the House, so it was not violative of the Constitution. All Assemblies elected after the appointed date would have their terms ending with that of the Lok Sabha, as per the Bill. In Justice Chandrachud's view, the Constitution only provides for a maximum term, that is five years, and there is no minimum guaranteed term. He was said to have pointed out that in a parliamentary democracy, there was no guaranteed term at all, and a government had to prove its mandate throughout the five years, through the check of the no-confidence motion. Justice Khehar observed that the Bill, while curtailing the term of Assemblies to only the unexpired term i.e less than 5 years, also ensures that the electorate is clearly informed about the reduced term at the time of voting. Damini Nath is an Assistant Editor with the national bureau of The Indian Express. She covers the housing and urban affairs and Election Commission beats. She has 11 years of experience as a reporter and sub-editor. Before joining The Indian Express in 2022, she was a reporter with The Hindu's national bureau covering culture, social justice, housing and urban affairs and the Election Commission. ... Read More
Time of India
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Ex-CJIs on 'One Nation, One Election' bill: Can EC have unbridled power?
Former CJI Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JS Khehar and at the Parliament House Annexe to give their presentation before the JPC (ANI photo) NEW DELHI: Even as they expressed the view that the bill on simultaneous elections passes muster with the basic structure of the Constitution, former Chief Justices of India J S Khehar and D Y Chandrachud questioned the legislation's entrusting of unbridled powers to the Election Commission, and also raised questions about other aspects of the legislation. In a meeting of the JPC on One Nation-One Poll (ONOP) that lasted over six hours, the two former CJIs are learnt to have expressed reservations about various clauses that the panel members went over. Justice Khehar is said to have deposed for around two-and-a-half hours and Justice Chandrachud for three hours. Crunching the protracted depositions on Friday, sources said the two argued that the contentious bill passed muster on the touchstone of the basic structure, but its specific features failed on the anvil of legalities. Both the judges are said to have suggested a lot of amendments. On Clause 82A (5) of the proposed bill, it was said the EC was being given such vast powers that it could postpone election in any state on the ground that the situation was not conducive. According to the bill, the EC can postpone election in one state if it feels they cannot be held with the Lok Sabha polls, but the said assembly's term would ultimately end with the term of LS. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like So sánh mức trượt giá: Hợp đồng tương lai (CFD) Bitcoin vs Ethereum IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Previously, former CJI Ranjan Gogoi had also questioned the broad authority given to the EC under Article 82A (5). To date, four former CJIs, including Justice U U Lalit, have shared their opinion with the committee. It was felt that such a clause would end up in the court with legal challenges. A member, quoting the judges, said the bill would require many amendments. Unfettered powers without parliamentary oversight, one CJI is learnt to have said, were unprecedented. Justice Chandrachud is learnt to have said that there were "constitutional silences" in the bill. The JPC, headed by P P Chaudhary, comprises Manish Tewari, P Wilson, Randeep Surjewala, Anil Baluni, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Bhartruhari Mahtab and Sambit Patra, among others. Questions are said to have been asked about the bill's provision to align the electoral cycle of one state with those of others and Parliament. Justice Khehar is said to have asked what would happen if Emergency is announced in one state which could be extended for up to one year: something which would throw the electoral cycle out of sync with others. A senior JPC member welcomed the suggestions of the CJIs and said the committee was open to refining the bill based on expert input. "Our goal is to incorporate reforms suggested by experts and the public," the member said, emphasising that the committee would consider these views while preparing its final report for Parliament.
The Print
11-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
ONOE: Ex-CJIs say bill ‘may not' violate basic structure of Constitution, but question powers to EC
'The opinion of the former CJIs was that the bill may get over the bar of basic structure, but it may fall short of legality and constitutionality in other aspects. While Justice Khehar was more forthright, Justice Chandrachud was guarded,' said an Opposition MP who attended the meeting that lasted over five hours in the Parliament annexe complex. Members of the JPC examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, widely known as the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bill, told ThePrint that Khehar appeared more doubtful about the legality and constitutionality of the concept than Chandrachud. New Delhi: Former Chief Justices of India and told a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) Friday that while simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and the state assemblies 'may not' violate the basic structure of the Constitution, authorising the Election Commission (EC) to decide the poll schedule without checks would fall short of legality. The MP said that Justice Khehar said that the text in the Bill needed to be revised and made more precise as several clauses are 'vaguely worded'. Justice Chandrachud is also learnt to have said that giving more powers to the EC could disturb constitutional balance. Previously, in his written submission to the JPC, Chandrachud had raised concern over the 'sweeping powers' granted to the EC in the proposed constitutional amendment law 'without laying down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretion'. However, he added that staggered elections were not an immutable feature of the Constitution, a view he shared during the meeting of the committee Friday as well. 'The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature,' the former CJI stated in his written submission. The Bill proposes an amendment in Article 172 of the Constitution (which lays down the duration and dissolution of state legislative assemblies) to allow the curtailment or extension of state assemblies for alignment of state polls with the general elections. Both the former CJIs are learnt to have recommended the need to have parliamentary oversight to prevent misuse of the provision by the EC. 'In fact, Justice Khehar said these questions and doubts assume more significance in light of the ongoing conversation about the supposed biased nature of the EC,' another MP said. Previously, two more CJIs—Justices and Ranjan Gogoi—have appeared before the committee. Appearing before the 39-member committee, former CJI Gogoi had also raised questions on the Constitutional validity of certain provisions in the Bill. Similarly, former CJI Lalit had also cautioned, in his submission before the panel, that curtailing the terms of the state assemblies to make the ONOE possible may not stand legal scrutiny. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: 'Worst attack' on Constitution, says Oppn after meeting EC over voter verification drive in Bihar
New Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Former CJIs flag concern over Election Commission's powers in simultaneous polls bill
Meanwhile, Opposition members, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra of the Congress and P Wilson of the DMK, raised concerns about the constitutionality of dissolving assemblies mid-term to align their polls with Lok Sabha elections, sources added. Wilson argued that while the stated aim of the bill is to reduce election expenditure, the proposed system could result in frequent elections in case of the fall of the government at the Centre, thereby defeating its purpose. Several MPs have also flagged the issue of mid-term elections, the sources said. Justice Khehar, they added, suggested that Parliament or the Union Council of Ministers should have a say in deciding whether an assembly election should be held, as envisaged under Section 82A(5) of the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill. The section, in its current form, states: 'If the Election Commission is of the opinion that the elections to any Legislative Assembly cannot be conducted along with the general election to the House of the People, it may make a recommendation to the President, to declare by an order, that the election to that Legislative Assembly may be conducted at a later date.' Referring to another section of the proposed law, he said it should also specify provisions applicable in case of an Emergency. Following the meeting, Chaudhary said, 'We want discussion on each aspect, only then the recommendation could be correct.' 'We want a transparent discussion to take place…The Parliament gave us the Bill so that it can be corrected. It was not given to us to return in the present form. We are making efforts on how simultaneous elections should be conducted in the national interest,' Chaudhary said. The chairman also stated that the panel is seeking views from experts on the Bill and that no amendment has been made yet. 'For example, Justices Khehar and Chandrachud had come. Many members had sought clarifications and doubts. To clear those doubts, everyone sat down and discussed. We had a very good discussion. This is a very big thing. This is a very big opportunity given to the Committee for nation building,' he added. A number of legal experts, including four former CJIs, have appeared before the Committee, which held its eighth sitting on Friday. Senior advocate and former Rajya Sabha member EM Sudarsana Natchiappan, a former chairman of the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, also shared his views.
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Padma Vibhushan for Justice Khehar; Posthumous honor for Bibek Debroy & Sharda Sinha
Justice Khehar, dancer Shobana, actor Anant Nag, and musician Ricky Kej are among 68 honored with the Padma Awards 2025 by President Murmu. This year's list includes icons and unsung heroes—like folk legend Sharda Sinha (posthumously) and social worker Ritambhara—celebrating India's diverse talent.► Subscribe to ET Digital for the latest video updates. It's free! Show more Show less
