Chandan Kumar Nath
(chandankumarnath7236@gmail.com)
In a striking address on April 17, 2025, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar sparked a national debate with a scathing critique of the Supreme Court of India, accusing it of overstepping its constitutional boundaries and acting as a “super Parliament’. His remarks, delivered during a valedictory ceremony for Rajya Sabha interns in New Delhi, centred on the court’s recent ruling that set a three-month timeline for the president to act on bills referred by state governors. Dhankhar’s provocative description of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces” has ignited discussions about the delicate balance of power among India’s judiciary, executive, and legislature.
The controversy stems from a Supreme Court judgement on April 8, 2025, in a case involving the Tamil Nadu government’s challenge to Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in granting assent to 10 state bills. The court, led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and S.M. Subramaniam Mahadevan, ruled that constitutional functionaries, including the president and governors, must act within a “reasonable time” on bills passed by state legislatures. For the first time, the court prescribed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills reserved for her consideration by governors, declaring that any delay beyond this period must be justified. The court also invalidated the Tamil Nadu governor’s second round of referring bills to the president as “legally flawed” and “arbitrary”, effectively clearing the stalled legislation. The ruling invoked Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court plenary powers to pass orders necessary for “complete justice” in any case before it. This provision, often described as the court’s “extraordinary power”, allows it to go beyond the strict letter of the law to ensure equitable outcomes. However, it has also been a lightning rod for criticism, with detractors arguing that it enables judicial overreach into the domains of the executive and legislature.
Vice President Dhankhar, who also serves as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, expressed deep alarm at what he perceived as the judiciary’s encroachment into executive and legislative functions. Speaking to interns, he questioned the constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s directive to the president, asking, “We cannot have a situation where you direct the president of India, and on what basis?” He argued that the judiciary’s role, as defined under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, is limited to interpreting the Constitution with a bench of at least five judges, not issuing directives to the nation’s highest office. Dhankhar’s most incendiary remark was his characterisation of Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.” He contended that the provision, intended to ensure justice, was being misused to allow judges to “legislate, perform executive functions, and act as super Parliament” without accountability. He warned that such actions undermine the constitutional authority of the president and the principle of separation of powers, which he described as the cornerstone of democratic accountability flowing from the people to Parliament through elections. Dhankhar also referenced the Supreme Court’s handling of a separate case involving Justice Yashwant Varma, a Delhi High Court judge, where semi-burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered at his residence after a fire on March 14, 2025. He questioned the lack of a First Information Report (FIR) in the case, noting that if a similar incident occurred at a common citizen’s home, investigations would proceed at “blazing speed”. The Supreme Court’s decision to order an in-house probe and transfer Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court, he argued, raised concerns about transparency and judicial accountability.
Dhankhar’s remarks have elicited sharply polarised responses. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies have largely supported his stance, viewing it as a necessary pushback against judicial overreach. Posts on X from BJP-affiliated accounts echoed his sentiments, with one user stating, “VP Dhankhar rightly questions the judiciary’s attempt to undermine the President’s constitutional role. Article 142 cannot be a blank cheque for judicial activism.” Conversely, the opposition, particularly the INDIA bloc, has condemned Dhankhar’s comments as “unethical” and bordering on contempt of court. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP Tiruchi Siva, whose party was directly involved in the Tamil Nadu case, defended the Supreme Court’s ruling, arguing that it upheld the rule of law by ensuring that no constitutional authority can indefinitely delay legislative processes. Siva tweeted, “The Constitution is supreme, and the judiciary, executive, and legislature have distinct powers. VP Dhankhar’s observations are unethical!” Legal experts are similarly divided. Some argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling was a necessary intervention to prevent governors and the president from obstructing state legislatures, particularly in opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu. Others, however, share Dhankhar’s concerns about Article 142’s expansive use, warning that it risks blurring the lines between judicial and executive functions.
Dhankhar’s critique raises fundamental questions about the balance of power in India’s democracy. The separation of powers doctrine, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is a bedrock principle inferred from its structure. The judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution often places it in tension with the executive and legislature, particularly when it invokes Article 142 to address perceived injustices. Historical examples, such as the court’s interventions in environmental cases or electoral reforms, demonstrate both the provision’s utility and its potential for controversy. The current standoff highlights a recurring challenge: how to reconcile the judiciary’s duty to ensure justice with the autonomy of other branches of government. Dhankhar’s reference to the 1975 Emergency, when the judiciary’s independence was severely tested, underscores the stakes of this debate. He questioned why those invoking the “basic structure” doctrine to limit parliamentary power often overlook past instances of executive overreach, suggesting a selective application of constitutional principles. As the controversy unfolds, it underscores the need for a constructive dialogue among India’s constitutional institutions. The Supreme Court’s ruling, while aimed at ensuring timely governance, has inadvertently fuelled perceptions of judicial overreach. Dhankhar’s outspoken critique, while resonating with those wary of an overactive judiciary, risks escalating tensions between the executive and the judiciary at a time when institutional harmony is crucial.
To prevent further erosion of public trust, stakeholders must prioritize mutual respect and adherence to constitutional norms. The judiciary could clarify the scope of Article 142 to address concerns about its open-ended application, while the executive and legislature must ensure that their actions withstand judicial scrutiny. As India navigates this constitutional crossroads, the words of Vice President Dhankhar serve as both a warning and a call to reaffirm the delicate balance that sustains its democracy.