The Parliamentary Joint Committee reviewing the simultaneous elections Bills met with a group of prominent media persons on Monday (October 5, 2026), despite a written objection from at least one member against including television anchor Sudhir Chaudhary among the witnesses.

Rajya Sabha MP Sagarika Ghose wrote a letter to panel chairperson P.P. Chaudhary asking what was the last “written or broadcast” work Sudir Chaudhary had done on the issue that would qualify him to speak on it and assist the committee. She further noted that the chairperson should have invited legal correspondents or journalists who have extensively reported on the subject.

The Mamata All India Trinamool Congress (MAITC) leader also pointed out a 2012 case against Mr. Chaudhary involving serious allegations of extortion for which he was held in judicial custody. While acknowledging the chairperson’s view that a period in custody did not disqualify a person from appearing before the committee, Ms. Ghose said her objection was based on the principle that witnesses should be selected based on “demonstrated expertise and a credible record”. For any future sitting, Ms. Ghose urged the chairperson to share the criteria used for selecting media witnesses with the members.Major media witnesses

According to sources, the media witnesses presented divergent assessments of the One Nation, One Election legislation. Three media personalities — Anjana Om Kashyap (Aaj Tak) and Mr. Chaudhary (DD News) — advocated for the legislation, arguing that it would save a substantial amount of the national exchequer. Another television anchor, Rahul Sinha (Zee News), backed the Bill but recommended reviewing the powers given to the Election Commission, a recurring criticism of the legislation. Raj Chengappa (India Today) and Shekhar Gupta (The Print) both expressed reservations about the legislation, arguing that renewing the mandate at regular intervals sustains Indian democracy.

The panel also met economists V. Anantha Nageswaran, S. Mahendra Dev, and S. Gurumurthy, who, according to sources, unanimously backed the reform arguing that the frequent election cycle diverts resources, contributes to policy paralysis, and keeps governance focused on electoral campaigns rather than administration.