DMK MP P Wilson Defends Judicial Consultation on One Nation One Election

DMK Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson stated in a letter dated October 5, 2026, that seeking the views of the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court judges on simultaneous poll legislation was not unconstitutional. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) Bills lost a valuable opportunity for judicial input after the proposed meeting was called off due to political objections.

Wilson defended the proposal for informal interaction with the judiciary to seek their institutional perspective on the bill under examination. He said the JPC has been holding extensive consultations to identify the constitutional, legal, financial, administrative and practical consequences of the proposed reform.

Context and justification

P. Wilson argued that seeking informal judicial views does not violate separation of powers. He said separation of powers does not mean the three organs of the State must operate in watertight compartments, never communicate with one another, or never exchange institutional perspectives.

He cited constitutional provisions like Article 143, which allows the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. "The Constitution does not establish three isolated islands," P. Wilson said. He invoked historical precedents, noting that in March 1948, judges of the Federal Court and Chief Justices of High Courts met to formulate collective views on the Draft Constitution.

Wilson emphasized that seeking informal views is not the same as seeking adjudication. They were not asking for the views of the Supreme Court as an institution, but for the judges' perspectives in their individual capacity as stakeholders in democracy. He stated that if the argument against interaction is accepted, Article 143 cannot remain in the Constitution.

Committee process and outcome

After obtaining permission from the competent authority, Wilson took up the issue through the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. The Secretariat of the committee approached the office of the Chief Justice of India, and the two offices exchanged communications. Acceptance was conveyed and acknowledged.

The names of the members of the proposed delegation were discussed, and the meeting was being worked out. Wilson had suggested the Committee hear the views of the present Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court judges through a Study Tour.

However, the meeting was called off because of unnecessary and unfortunate circumstances caused by vested interests. Wilson stated that the Committee lost the valuable opportunity to interact with the Chief Justice of India and some judges of the Supreme Court.

Political positioning

P. Wilson clarified that his DMK party's opposition to the One Nation One Election bill remains firm and consistent. He said the interaction should not be construed as support for, endorsement of, or dilution of the DMK’s political and constitutional opposition to ONOE.

He stated his party is opposed to the bill and that party leader M.K. Stalin has always maintained an unequivocal position against it. Wilson said his own opposition to the bill is firm, consistent and unwavering.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee continues to hold extensive consultations on the constitutional, legal, financial, administrative and practical consequences of the One Nation One Election reform.