Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Apr 18: A series of pointed remarks by the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar concerning the Supreme Court and the judiciary has prompted an equally sharp response from the opposition parties and some senior advocates while the BJP has rallied behind him condemning the “judicial overreach.”
The Opposition leaders including the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and prominent legal voices, launched sharp criticism in response to Mr Dhankhar’s remarks accusing him of undermining the judiciary “bordering on contempt.”
The criticism stems from a series of remarks made by Mr Dhankhar during his address to Rajya Sabha interns on April 17, in which he described Article 142 as “a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24/7.” He also questioned the judiciary’s authority to mandate timelines for the President and raised concerns over the process by which FIRs against judges require judicial approval. “The Constitution of India has accorded immunity from prosecution only to the President and the Governors. So how has a category beyond law secured this immunity?” Mr Dhankhar had asked.
“In our democracy, only the Constitution of India is supreme and most elevated. No office—be it that of the President, Prime Minister, or Governor—is above the fetters of constitutional propriety,” said senior Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala, referring to the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment mandating a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved by governors. He described the ruling as “timely, accurate, courageous, and a correction to the notion that those holding high office are above checks and balances.”
TMC leader Kalyan Banerjee echoed these concerns, accusing Mr Dhankhar of displaying “repeated disregard” for the judiciary. “The statement made by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar regarding Supreme Court judges is highly objectionable and borders on contempt. As a constitutional authority, he is expected to uphold and respect other constitutional institutions,” he said.
DMK’s Tiruchi Siva termed the remarks “unethical” and reiterated that the rule of law must prevail over institutional arrogance. “No individual, under the guise of being a constitutional authority, can indefinitely sit on bills passed by a legislature. The Vice President’s observations are unethical,” he said.
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal criticised Dhankhar’s objection to Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to ensure “complete justice.” “The Constitution has given this power to the Supreme Court to deliver complete justice. Who is curtailing the President’s power?”
Mr Sibal recalled the 1975 Supreme Court judgment that invalidated then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election. “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,” he said. “That was acceptable to Dhankhar ji, but now a two-judge bench ruling against the government is being questioned?”
Mr Sibal also expressed his disappointment over the Vice President’s public criticism of the Supreme Court’s authority. “I was saddened and surprised to see Jagdeep Dhankhar’s statement,” he said. “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.”
Mr Dhankhar criticised the judiciary for allegedly assuming the roles of legislature and executive, claiming that certain judges were acting as a “super Parliament.” Specifically referencing a recent Supreme Court verdict concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor’s withholding of assent to ten bills, Mr Dhankhar objected to the court imposing a time-bound directive on the President.
“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 law of the land does not apply to them,” Mr Dhankhar said. Mr Sibal, in response, accused the Vice President of undermining both judicial independence and constitutional literacy.
Reacting to the controversy, the BJP rallied behind the Vice President, accusing the Opposition of political hypocrisy. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla said, “I don’t need to learn constitutional propriety from a party that says it won’t implement a law passed by Parliament, mocks the Vice President’s posture, protects rioters in the name of vote bank politics, and finds no time to visit Hindu victims in Bengal.”
A senior Supreme Court advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, a strong BJP supporter, backing Mr Dhankhar said, “It is the duty of the President and Vice-President to uphold the Constitution. All Mr Dhankhar has done is point out a constitutional flaw amid a growing public perception that there is a tendency towards judicial overreach.”
“…All Dhankar ji has done has pointed a constitutional flaw. Public perception is reflected on social media…lack of transparency is an important matter. The transfer of Justice Varma (cash-at-home row) has not gone down well with people. The President or the VP (Vice-President) has a duty to uphold the Constitution,” he said.
Voicing his support for the Vice-President, Mr Jethmalani wrote a detailed post on his social media. He said “serious issues” in recent times have created public perception that the “Indian judiciary lacks transparency and accountability.” Referring to the Justice Yashwant Varma cash-at-home case, he said this was especially true in its dealing with sensitive issues “pertaining to itself, the chief among them being judicial corruption.”
“…the Justice Yashwant Varma issue has spawned the declaration of assets by judicial officers including those of the Supreme Court, the abandonment of the practice of simple transfer of errant judges to other courts, the subjection of allegedly corrupt judges to criminal investigations and perhaps even to inquiries by ombudsmen such as the Lokayukt & the Lokpal,” he wrote in a post on X.
Mr Jethmalani further said the recent two-judge decision of an SC bench to impose a timeline of three months for the President to dispose of state bills was bound to stir a hornet’s nest. He said it took Dhankhar – “irrepressible” and “accomplished jurist” – to “take up cudgels” and point out a “patent constitutional flaw.”
“…while some may question the constitutional propriety of a symbolic second head of the State entering the arena of conflict between 2 limbs of govt, the pointing out of a patent constitutional flaw (the VP is an accomplished jurist besides) that Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandated that a question pertaining to the interpretation of a Constitutional provision be dealt with by a 5 judge Bench only and that the 2 judge Bench decision was a nullity would surely be in discharge of the Vice President’s sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution,” he added.
