Friday, 25 April 2025
Friday, 25 April 2025
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks against the judiciary have triggered a wave of responses and rebuttals — from lawyers, politicians, and legal experts, who accuse him of undermining constitutional values and judicial independence.
At the heart of the storm is a recent Supreme Court directive that the president must decide on bills reserved by governors within three months of receiving them.
The order came in response to 10 bills being withheld by the Tamil Nadu governor, RN Ravi, prompting the court to step in.
Dhankhar lashed out at the judiciary, accusing it of breaching constitutional limits by invoking Article 142 — a provision that empowers the apex court to pass any decree or order to ensure “complete justice.” He likened Article 142 to a “nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24x7.”
“We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India, and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There, it has to be five judges or more. Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7,” Dhankhar said.
In the vice president’s view, the judiciary is encroaching on the domain of the legislature and executive. He took direct aim at the Supreme Court’s intervention in the case of the Tamil Nadu governor.
“The President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, it becomes law. So, we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them," he said.
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said, “People would remember that when the Supreme Court’s decision came regarding the election of Indira Gandhi, only one judge - Justice Krishna Iyer - gave the decision, and she was unseated. That was acceptable to Dhankhar ji. But, now, a two-judge bench ruling against the government is being questioned?”
Sibal didn’t hold back on his disappointment. “I was saddened and surprised to see Jagdeep Dhankhar's statement. If there is any institution that continues to command the trust of the public across the country, it is the judiciary. The President is only a titular head. The President acts on the authority and advice of the Cabinet. The President has no personal right of their own. Jagdeep Dhankhar should know this.”
Former Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi described the vice president’s comments as reckless. “His criticism is misplaced. His comment leans towards excess, and amounts more or less to hyperbole, which people in constitutional positions should be wary of indulging in because there has to be both caution and restraint when you talk about legal and emotive issues. By stirring emotions, you take the mind away from the legality and create a misconception about the whole controversy, which can have long-term consequences, because it can create a view that discredits the system. I'm not saying that any system should be averse to scrutiny, but the criticism should be warranted, and the scrutiny should be sensible. The judiciary cannot be a wing of the government. The judiciary is not supposed to oppose the government for the sake of opposing, but the judiciary cannot always be seen as being on the same side as the government, because the government is a litigant in the judiciary. The fact that the court is considering legal controversies arising out of the government’s act shows that we've got a vibrant and effective legal system that’s a tribute to the worth and efficacy of our system, and we should celebrate it. As long as there's a means of resolution, conflicts are welcome, because conflict shows an intelligent and active polity.”
Former ASG Vikas Singh echoed the concern. “The Vice President should not make such comments about the judiciary because it's a high constitutional office that functions within the Constitution. Each limb of the Constitution should respect the other. Sweeping judgments binding the other Constitutional functionaries also don't have a good effect on the Constitution's workings,” he said.
Samajwadi Party MP Rajeev Rai pointed to a deeper political context. “When the country is heading towards dictatorship, they cannot tolerate when the judiciary is talking against them. Whenever a judge retires, he is made a chairperson of a committee or made a Rajya Sabha MP. It is a mockery of the entire system,” Rai said.
Congress leader Salman Khurshid said, “The Supreme Court is final. We believe in it. You cannot say that we will agree to SC only when it talks in our favour. Or you cannot say that if the SC talks against us, we will not agree to that. If the SC has taken any decision, you have to agree to it, whether it is in your favour or against. SC judges are also like us, and they have made it very clear that if we make any mistake, then you can review it and the SC can rectify it.”
Samajwadi Party leader Fakhrul Hasan Chand backed the court’s stance on the timeline for bills. “The Constitution has defined the roles of President, Governors, central and state governments. Samajwadi Party feels that some bills are sent to the Governor, but if those bills are not passed, then it hampers the state. That’s why the Samajwadi Party feels that no one should've any objection to [the judiciary] prescribing a timeline for bills,” Chand said.
