Archive · 6 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Cancels One Nation, One Election Committee Meeting
A parliamentary committee is studying plans to hold national and state elections at the same time.
The committee had planned to meet Supreme Court judges for an informal discussion about the idea.
The court first agreed to meet on October 6.
On October 1, it cancelled the meeting, saying the Bills might later come before it for a legal decision.
Committee chairman P P Chaudhary said the court had initially confirmed the meeting in a letter dated September 22.
P Wilson said the discussion would have been for consultation, not a request for a court ruling.
Manish Tewari said arranging the meeting was a serious mistake because the court might later hear a case about the Bills.
Other people who spoke to the committee supported simultaneous elections and raised concerns about the effects of frequent elections.
The Supreme Court had confirmed a meeting with the parliamentary committee for October 6 at 4:30 pm, then cancelled it on October 1.
The court said it was not desirable to discuss the Bills because they could become subject to judicial review.
Committee chairman P P Chaudhary said the meeting had been suggested by DMK MP P Wilson and members had been informed after the court’s September 22 letter.
P Wilson argued that an informal exchange of views would not amount to asking the court to adjudicate; Congress MP Manish Tewari called the proposed consultation a grave error.
The committee is also examining testimony supporting simultaneous elections as it considers two Bills introduced in December 2024.
- Who
- The Supreme Court of India and the Joint Committee of Parliament examining the One Nation, One Election Bills.
- What
- The Supreme Court cancelled a planned informal discussion with committee members about simultaneous elections.
- When
- The court confirmed the meeting on September 22 and cancelled it on October 1; it had been scheduled for October 6 at 4:30 pm.
- Where
- The proposed discussion was to take place at the Supreme Court.
- Why
- The court said discussion was not desirable because the Bills could become subject to judicial review.
Arguments for consultation
Concerns about consultation
Whether judges should meet the committee
Arguments for consultation
P Wilson said an informal exchange of views would not amount to seeking adjudication, and cited past interactions between parliamentary committees and judges.
Concerns about consultation
Manish Tewari said consulting the Supreme Court was a grave error because the Bills could later come before the court.
Whether simultaneous elections are beneficial
Arguments for consultation
People who addressed the committee supported the idea, arguing that frequent elections can shift attention toward revenue spending, contribute to policy paralysis, and encourage money power and paid party workers.
Concerns about consultation
The article reports the objections to the proposed judicial meeting but does not identify a specific opposing argument about the merits of simultaneous elections.
- Committee chairman
- P P Chaudhary
- Original meeting time
- October 6 at 4:30 pm
- Cancellation date
- October 1
- Date of court's confirmation letter
- September 22
- Bills under examination
- The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024
- Bill introduction
- Both Bills were introduced in December 2024.
- Proposed change
- A one-time curtailment of state Assembly terms to align them with the Lok Sabha's term and enable simultaneous elections.