Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Thursday claimed that the joint committee of Parliament examining bills on simultaneous elections is set to visit the Supreme Court to have an informal discussion with judges on "One Nation, One Election", calling it "unconstitutional" as well as contrary to the concept of separation of powers.
Sibal said the move is unprecedented and he has not seen something like this in his entire legal career, as the panel would brief the judges on how good the law is when the same law is likely to be challenged before them at a later stage.
"The government is briefing them on how good the law is. This is the same law against which a petition will be filed, and the Supreme Court will decide whether the petition is valid and whether the law should be struck down or upheld. I have never heard of anything like this in my legal career," the Independent Rajya Sabha MP said.
"This is unconstitutional and contrary to the concept of separation of powers," Sibal said at a press conference here.
It is Parliament's right to pass laws and it is the court's duty to decide whether a law is right or wrong, he added.
Sibal claimed that a circulated document of the P P Chaudhary-led committee says that there will be a local study visit programme to the Supreme Court on October 6.
"So the Supreme Court will be told that we are going to pass this law on which the Supreme Court will decide later whether it is right or wrong," he said.
Sibal said it has been listed as an informal discussion with the chief justice of India and other judges on the issue of simultaneous polls.
He said he was "very disturbed" upon hearing about this programme.
"When Parliament makes a law, there is discussion about that law, and the Bill that is circulated is also discussed. During the discussion, newspapers also publish the opinions of various people. Some express their views in favour of the law, while others oppose it. Editorials are published as well. If it is a significant law that can have an impact on the country's future, it naturally receives more discussion," he said.
This is a good thing and should happen, so that when the law is passed, various aspects come to the fore, whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional, he added.
"When a law is passed, Parliament does not examine whether it is constitutional or not. That is something the higher judiciary examines. If the law is unconstitutional, then naturally there will be petitions and the court will decide the matter.
"I have never seen that a parliamentary group has a meeting in the Supreme Court to tell the judges what the law is. I have never seen such an example in my entire legal career," Sibal said.
(With inputs from PTI)
