Quiet, please: Editorial on Jagdeep Dhankhar's criticism of Supreme Court verdict on state bills

The vice-president’s office, much like that of the governor, is ceremonial but carries weight. It is thus crucial that the occupants of such constitutional positions are not motor mouths. Unfortunately, India’s vice-president has set tongues wagging, yet again, by being a loose cannon. Speaking to interns of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar set his sights on a recent judgment by the Supreme Court that under­lined a specific timeline for the president and gov­ernors when it came to the passage of bills. Mr Dhankhar opined that Indian democracy was not meant to have judges acting as a “super parliament”. He was also critical of the apex court’s invocation of Article 142, which he described as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”. Mr Dhan­khar’s remarks are patently objectionable. The Supreme Court has been far more mindful than the executive when it comes to protecting the principle of the balance of power among the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. In several instances, the apex court is on record refraining from intervention on the grounds that such a measure could be seen as judicial overreach. So Mr Dhankhar’s missile against this luminous institution is misdirected. The occupants of even benign offices are expected to abide by constitutional conventions: mutual respect among institutions and their office-bearers is one such convention. But Mr Dhan­khar seems not to care much about decorum.

Mr Dhankhar’s remark, however crass, is not without motive. His insensitive criticism against India’s highest court needs to be seen within a broader arc of tensions — antipathy? — between the executive and the judiciary. It must be pointed out that ties between the judiciary and the Narendra Modi government have not exactly been ideal on several occasions. Recently, when there were allegations of unaccounted currency notes being retrieved from the premises of a judge, there was an audible campaign complaining about the lack of transparency in the judiciary and the need to dismantle the Collegium system. Mr Modi’s regime has also been accused of sitting on the names of judges recommended by the Collegium, a point that has been raised by the Supreme Court itself. These incidents can be attributed to overreach — of the judicial turf by the executive.