Latest news with #ONOE)Bill
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
News18
11-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
One Nation, One Election And ECI's Powers: Former CJIs Chandrachud, Kehar Offer Insights To JPC
The panel, chaired by senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP and former Union Minister PP Chaudhary, heard from the two former CJIs At the latest meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) tasked with reviewing the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bill, former Chief Justices of India DY Chandrachud and JS Kehar appeared as key witnesses and offered detailed insights into the legal and constitutional aspects of the proposed legislation. The panel, chaired by senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP and former Union Minister PP Chaudhary, heard from the two former CJIs, both of whom acknowledged the bill's overall constitutional validity in principle, but raised concerns about certain provisions that they said warranted further scrutiny and refinement. Sources said the former judges pointed out that several clauses in the bill were vaguely worded and open to multiple interpretations. Justice Kehar reportedly emphasised that such ambiguities should not be left to the courts to resolve, but must instead be clarified by Parliament through precise legislative language. Justice Chandrachud concurred, cautioning in his written submission against vesting excessive powers in the Election Commission of India (ECI), a concern Justice Kehar also echoed. Both jurists urged the committee to reconsider the proposal to expand the ECI's authority, warning that unchecked powers could disturb the institutional balance and require more robust safeguards. Justice Kehar further elaborated on the technical elements of the bill. He noted that the primary objective of the ONOE proposal is to synchronise Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections and that this does not, in itself, disturb the constitutional framework. Citing Article 82A(1), he clarified that it merely sets the date for constituting a new Lok Sabha and does not interfere with the conduct or duration of elections. Addressing concerns around curtailed tenures of state assemblies in cases of early dissolution, he explained that the bill ensures voter transparency by mandating the Election Commission to notify the exact term of the House being elected, making the electorate fully aware of the shortened tenure. Justice Kehar also highlighted that Article 83(2) of the Constitution contains the phrase 'unless sooner dissolved", which makes it clear that the five-year tenure of legislatures is not sacrosanct. In this context, he argued that a shortened or even extended term would not violate the Constitution's basic structure. He suggested that the bill's language be refined to minimise legal ambiguity and avoid potential judicial misinterpretation. On the question of whether the ONOE proposal would reduce state legislatures to a subordinate status in relation to Parliament, Kehar firmly rejected the notion, asserting that the bill does not infringe upon the distinct powers and responsibilities of state assemblies and the central legislature. Justice Chandrachud expressed support for the concept of simultaneous elections, clarifying that asynchronous (non-simultaneous) elections are not a criterion for free and fair elections, and therefore do not form part of the Constitution's basic structure. He noted that the original constitutional framework envisioned simultaneous elections in the early years of the Republic. He further stated that the right of voters to choose their representatives is not compromised even if the tenure of a House or Assembly is less than five years. Addressing concerns that simultaneous elections might dilute local issues, he argued the opposite — citing the language issue as an example of a regional matter that has, in the past, influenced national electoral agendas. Justice Chandrachud emphasised that the Constitution stipulates only a maximum term of five years for legislatures, with no minimum guarantee. In a parliamentary democracy, he noted, a government must continuously prove its majority, subject to no-confidence motions throughout its tenure. Additionally, he proposed placing certain constraints on the no-confidence motion to promote political stability — a change he believes could be achieved through a simple amendment to the rules of the House, without requiring a constitutional amendment. Friday's meeting saw attendance from key opposition members including Supriya Sule (NCP), Mukul Wasnik, Randeep Surjewala, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (Congress), Anil Desai (Shiv Sena UBT), and Kalyan Banerjee (TMC). Representing the ruling alliance were Anurag Thakur, Sambit Patra, Bhartruhari Mahtab and Harish Balayogi (TDP), among others. The JPC was constituted during the last winter session of Parliament after the Centre agreed to subject the ONOE Bill to detailed legislative scrutiny. Initially tabled by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, the committee's membership was later expanded to 39, accommodating demands from the opposition. The panel also includes legal minds like Manish Tewari, P. Wilson, and Kalyan Banerjee, whose contributions are expected to shape the final report. Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
