World
India
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday launched a sharp critique against the Supreme Court, accusing it of overstepping its constitutional mandate by setting deadlines for the President to act on state Bills and invoking Article 142 to enact legislation without executive approval. Dhankhar’s remarks have reignited a national debate on judicial activism, constitutional boundaries, and the delicate separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.
Speaking at the valedictory session of the 6th Rajya Sabha Internship Programme, Dhankhar described Article 142, a provision that empowers the Supreme Court to deliver “complete justice”, as a “nuclear missile available to the judiciary 24×7.” He warned against its frequent use, cautioning that such powers, unchecked, could destabilise India’s democratic framework.
“Super Parliament” Criticism
Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on April 8 that cleared 10 pending Tamil Nadu Assembly Bills without gubernatorial assent, Dhankhar said:
“We have judges who will legislate, perform executive functions, act as a super Parliament, and remain unaccountable, because the law of the land does not apply to them.”
The Vice President expressed particular concern over the Court setting deadlines for both Governors and the President to decide on state legislation — a move he called unprecedented and constitutionally questionable.
Justice Yashwant Varma Case Raises Fresh Questions
Dhankhar also questioned the handling of the recent controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma, after reports surfaced about semi-burnt sacks of cash found at the judge’s official residence in Delhi last month.
“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone — even constitutional functionaries like me. But when it comes to judges, permission is required. That is not in the Constitution,” Dhankhar remarked, highlighting what he termed a worrying double standard undermining the rule of law.
While Dhankhar’s comments have drawn support from several constitutional experts and officials, they have also sparked pushback from jurists defending the apex court’s actions.
Former Attorney General KK Venugopal endorsed the Court’s decision, saying it rightly sought to end inordinate delays by Governors and brought clarity to a grey area of constitutional practice. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Tamil Nadu, said the Court’s move safeguarded state legislative authority and addressed constitutional ambiguity.
Conversely, Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar and several central government officials expressed apprehension that the verdict diluted the President’s constitutional veto powers, traditionally used to stall potentially problematic state legislation.
Growing Debate, Possible Review Petition
Legal experts such as Advocate Rajan Singh and Attorney General R. Venkataramani warned against the judiciary “getting deeper into the machinery of governance” without hearing all parties involved — particularly the President and the Centre.
The Ministry of Home Affairs is reportedly preparing a review petition to challenge the judgment, amid fears it could have long-term, unpredictable consequences on federal relations and the constitutional role of the Executive.
The Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling marked a historic first in Indian legal history — enacting state laws without presidential or gubernatorial assent. While Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin hailed the judgment as a victory for democracy and state rights, critics see it as judicial overreach veering into the Executive’s domain.
ALSO READ: Punjab Blasts Accused ‘Wanted Gangster’ Happy Passia Arrested In US
