DMK MP defends the simultaneous polls panel’s plan to meet CJI

Defending the study tour to the Supreme Court of India, DMK Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson, a member of Parliament’s Joint Committee reviewing the simultaneous poll legislations, wrote in a letter to panel chairperson P.P. Chaudhary on Monday (October 5, 2026) that seeking the views 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 called the move unprecedented. The study tour was eventually cancelled.

Foregrounding the DMK’s opposition to simultaneous polls, Mr. Wilson said that his remarks in the letter are solely confined to the question of separation of powers. Mr. Wilson, who played a central role in arranging the study tour, said that the meeting was called off over political objections raised by “vested interests”.

Separation of powers, he wrote, does not mean the three organs operate in watertight compartments. “The Constitution does not establish three isolated islands,” he said. Seeking informal views is not the same as seeking adjudication, and the Committee was not asking judges to certify or pre-judge the Bill.

He cited March 1948, when Federal Court judges and High Court Chief Justices met to formulate views on the Draft Constitution. He also pointed to Article 143, under which the President may seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of public importance, and said the provision could not remain if the opposing argument held.

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

The tour, much like the other consultations the panel held, also aimed at hearing every relevant perspective, Mr. Wilson said. 

“Our effort was therefore made in good faith, with one objective: to hear every relevant perspective, address every legitimate concern and ensure that the constitutional amendment, if enacted, is as carefully considered and constitutionally valid,” the letter said.

Mr. Wilson’s letter was put on record by the chairperson of the panel. 

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

The AIMTC leader wrote to chairperson P.P. Chaudhary, asking 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 held in judicial custody. 

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