'Constitutional Validity of a Proposal Doesn't Mean Its Desirability': EX-CJI Khanna Tells ONOE Committee
The Wire Staff
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
New Delhi: Former chief justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna has told the parliamentary committee scrutinising the one nation one election bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions.
In his written opinion to the committee, Khanna, said that arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure may be raised about the constitutional amendment bill. He also listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, reported Press Trust of India.
Khanna joined a few other former chief justices of India in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission in the bill. Khanna is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday (August 19).
The former CJI has stated that the bill confers "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an assembly poll cannot be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, said the PTI report, citing sources.
"This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said.
Article 14 pertains to equality before law.
"Postponement of elections by the Election Commission may result in indirect President’s rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the state government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution," said Khanna.
Khanna said that the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, is a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate, adding that there is a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review".
Khanna said that when the Supreme Court or high courts uphold constitutional validity, it is a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision is not violative of the constitutional limitations.
"The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," said the former CJI.
This article went live on August eighteenth, two thousand twenty five, at twenty-seven minutes past twelve at noon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.