New Delhi: Former chief justices of India, DY Chandrachud and J S Khehar, Friday flagged certain provisions of the constitutional amendment bill for simultaneous elections, including powers it vest with the Election Commission, but rejected the suggestion that the idea falls foul of the Constitution, sources said.
Khehar is the third ex-CJI to question the wide leeway the bill confers on the poll body under its 82A(5) Section in deciding on holding the election of an assembly after Ranjan Gogoi and Chandrachud.
While Chandrachud appeared before the Joint Committee of Parliament headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary after Khehar, he had submitted his written opinion earlier.
Summarising the views expressed by the two jurists on what has come to be known as the one nation, one election (ONOE) bill, a source said both of them suggested that the bill has certain grey areas that should be addressed by the committee and made some suggestions as well.
He added that both of them made it clear that the proposed law does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, as alleged by opposition parties. “It does not hamper the basic structure of the Constitution,” Chandrachud is learnt to have said.
Opposition members, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra of the Congress, raised queries about the constitutionality of dissolving assemblies midway to synchronise their polls with Lok Sabha elections, sources said.
Khehar, they added, suggested that Parliament or the Union Council of Ministers should have a say in taking the call on holding the election of an assembly, as envisaged under the 82A(5) section of the Constitution (One hundred and twenty-ninth)Amendment Bill.
The Section in its current form says, “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 what will happen in case of an Emergency.
Sources said another issue that was flagged was what will happen if, for some reason, the remaining term of an assembly is very short, like a few months, and if then the polls will be held for such a limited duration. The bill should clarify this as well, a jurist said.
Speaking to reporters, Chaudhary said the committee welcomes different kinds of views as it will help the panel make good recommendations. “We want committee members and all stakeholders to have a thorough discussion. Parliament has given us the bill so that we can improve on it, and not that we return it the way it is,” he said, referring to different issues flagged by experts.
“Our committee has got a great chance for nation-building and I think such an opportunity will never come again,” the BJP MP added.
A number of legal experts, including four ex-CJIs, have appeared before the committee, which held its eighth sitting on Friday.
Senior advocate and former Rajya Sabha member E M Sudarsana Natchiappan, a former chairman of the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, also shared his views with the committee.
PTI