A study tour to the Supreme Court of India, organized by a parliamentary panel on simultaneous elections legislation, drew criticism when a letter from DMK Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson was sent to the panel chair, P.P. Chaudhary, on Monday, October 5, 2026. Wilson, who had helped arrange the visit, argued that seeking the Chief Justice of India’s and other Supreme Court judges’ informal views was not unconstitutional. He wrote that the move was a legitimate exercise of the committee’s mandate, following a similar claim by fellow MP Kapil Sibal on October 1 that the visit would violate the separation of powers.
In his letter, Wilson explained that the Constitution does not create “watertight compartments” for the executive, legislature and judiciary. He said that informal consultation differs from adjudication and that the committee was not asking judges to certify or pre‑judge the bill. He cited the 1948 meeting of Federal Court judges and High Court chief justices on the draft Constitution, Article 143, which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance, and referenced a 2022 parliamentary panel meeting with then‑Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, as evidence that such consultations are not unprecedented.
The study tour was ultimately cancelled after political objections were raised, which Wilson attributed to “vested interests.” He stated that the panel’s objective was to hear all relevant perspectives, address legitimate concerns, and ensure that any constitutional amendment would be carefully considered and valid.
On the same day, the panel met with media personalities and economists. Rajya Sabha MP Sagarika Ghose objected to the inclusion of Doordarshan anchor Sudhir Chaudhary, citing a 2012 extortion case that had kept him in judicial custody. Ghose asked the chair for evidence of Chaudhary’s expertise and for the criteria that would guide the selection of media witnesses in future sessions.
