Ex-CJIs flag ‘unbridled powers’ to CEC on one poll, say parliamentary control must

Former Chief Justices of India DY Chandrachud and JS Khehar on Friday recommended that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) should not be given “unbridled powers” to make recommendations to the President while implementing “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE). They suggested that parliamentary supervision was necessary.

The two legal luminaries are learnt to have made the recommendation while deposing before the joint parliamentary panel examining the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.

They stated the CEC had been given unbridled powers as per the provisions of the proposed legislations, which needed to be checked through parliamentary intervention, sources privy to the development said. The panel, headed by BJP MP PP Chaudhary, had invited the two jurists to seek their views on the ONOE concept.

They said if a state Assembly was dissolved and the election to that state could not be held simultaneously with the Lok Sabha poll, the CEC, as per provisions of the ONOE, could recommend to the President to delay that election. The period of delay was open-ended and not time bound. The two former CJIs are learnt to have suggested to the joint panel that this decision should be taken by Parliament and there should not be a situation where recommendations were sent directly by the CEC to the President.

The legal luminaries, especially Justice Chandrachud, are learnt to have stated that either national security or public order should be the reason behind delaying elections. According to the sources, Chandrachud cited the example of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections without naming the UT, which were held in October 2024 after a delay of 10 years.

The EC had cited the sensitive situation prevailing there for not holding the poll earlier even though the Lok Sabha elections were held there in May 2024 along with the entire country.

Sources said the two judges were not against the concept of ONOE but suggested that rather than waiting for a situation where the proposed legislations could be sent for judicial review, all “grey areas” should be ironed out during the scrutiny by the parliamentary panel.

One of the jurists is said to have noted that a five-year term for an elected government was important for “good governance”. Justice Chandrachud had said in the past that the ability of the government to take on any meaningful project would be minimised if its tenure was only a year or less, as the poll code would come into force around six months before the next poll.

Incidentally, another former CJI UU Lalit, who had appeared before the panel earlier this year, had cautioned that the provisions of the proposed Bills might not pass muster before judicial scrutiny, though his submission before the panel had indicated overall support to the concept.

Friday’s meeting was the eight sitting of the joint panel, which is supposed to submit its report to the Lok Sabha on the first day of the last week of the upcoming monsoon session.

Several opposition leaders have criticised the proposed Bills, saying the synchronisation of the Lok Sabha and state Assembly elections violates the Constitution’s basic structure.

The ONOE proposal seeks to synchronise the electoral cycles of the Lok Sabha and all state Assemblies to reduce governance disruption caused by frequent elections, optimise administrative resources and significantly cut down on electoral expenditure.

Top News