Vice-President’s remarks on SC order evoke mixed views from legal luminaries

New Delhi: Legal experts have shared diverse opinions on Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s directive requiring the President to act within a specified timeframe on bills forwarded by Governors for consideration.

Senior Advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal asserted that the judiciary has the right to intervene if the executive fails in its duties, as it serves the citizens. He emphasised that any attack on the judiciary must prompt political defence, as judicial independence is crucial to democracy.

Kapil Sibal criticised the Vice President’s remarks, stating he had never seen such political statements from a House chairman. He noted the President acts only on the advice of the Council of Ministers, making it inappropriate to question the Supreme Court’s directive. He also rejected the characterisation of Article 142 as a “nuclear missile,” affirming the court’s role in constitutional interpretation.

He condemned the judiciary’s public criticism, highlighting that judges cannot defend themselves and that judgments should be critiqued, not equated to executive actions.
Former Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi said the judiciary cannot be a wing of the government.

‘‘His (Vice President’s) 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,” he said.

‘‘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,” he added. Former Union Law Secretary PK Malhotra stated that Articles 32, 136, and 142 grant the Supreme Court extraordinary powers for enforcing fundamental rights, addressing cases without regular appeals, and ensuring complete justice.

‘‘These powers, meant to be used sparingly, have been restricted by the Court itself through various judgments. Article 142 was first invoked in the 1998 Bhopal Gas case and has since been used selectively, such as in the Vishakha case and during the pandemic to enable virtual court functioning. While such use aligns with the Constitution’s spirit, frequent or indiscriminate application cannot be justified,” he said.

Former ASG and Senior Advocate Pinki Anand criticised the Supreme Court’s imposition of strict timelines for the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201, arguing that interpreting “as soon as possible” in such a rigid manner constitutes judicial overreach.  (ANI)

Also Read: ‘Seek & destroy’ ops for terrorists hiding in J&K’s Poonch enters 5th day

Also Watch: