New Delhi: On April 17, 2025, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar delivered a powerful and thought-provoking speech at the valedictory ceremony for the 6th Batch of Rajya Sabha Interns in New Delhi, accusing India’s judiciary of transcending its constitutional limits and assuming the role of a “super Parliament.” His remarks were a direct response to a recent Supreme Court ruling that mandated a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills referred by state governors, while also invoking Article 142 to declare ten pending bills as automatically assented. Dhankhar’s sharp critique, describing Article 142 as a “nuclear missile” aimed at democratic principles, has sparked a nationwide conversation about judicial authority, accountability, and the sanctity of India’s democratic framework.
Tensions at the Heart of Democracy
The Vice President’s address comes amid escalating friction among India’s core institutions: the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Dhankhar expressed alarm at what he perceives as the judiciary’s encroachment into areas reserved for elected officials and appointed authorities. “We are witnessing judges who legislate, execute, and act as a super Parliament, all while remaining beyond the reach of accountability,” he stated, emphasizing the absence of mechanisms to scrutinize judicial actions compared to the rigorous oversight faced by elected governments.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to impose a timeline on the President’s decision-making process has drawn particular ire. By deeming bills as law in the absence of timely action, the court has effectively curtailed the President’s discretionary powers, a move Dhankhar described as unprecedented. “How can the judiciary dictate terms to the President? What does this mean for the future of our democracy?” he asked, voicing concerns about the erosion of institutional boundaries. This ruling has intensified debates about the judiciary’s role in a system where each branch is meant to operate within clearly defined limits.
Unpacking Article 142: A Tool for Justice or Overreach?
At the core of Dhankhar’s critique lies Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to issue orders or decrees necessary to achieve “complete justice” in any case before it. Designed as a safeguard for situations where existing laws are inadequate, Article 142 has been a double-edged sword, enabling landmark interventions while inviting accusations of judicial overreach.
Dhankhar’s characterization of Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, perpetually at the judiciary’s disposal” underscores its potential to disrupt the balance of power. The provision has been invoked in significant cases, such as the 2002 Bhanwari Devi and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court introduced the Vishaka Guidelines to address workplace sexual harassment. While such actions have been lauded for advancing justice, the ambiguous phrasing of “complete justice” has raised concerns about its subjective application, allowing judges to wield significant influence over matters traditionally handled by other branches.
The Risks of Unchecked Judicial Power
Dhankhar highlighted several critical issues with the judiciary’s reliance on Article 142, echoing concerns shared by constitutional scholars and political observers:
- Ambiguity in Application: The undefined nature of “complete justice” leaves room for varied interpretations, potentially leading to inconsistent rulings that lack a clear legal basis.
- Intrusion into Legislative and Executive Spheres: By issuing directives that resemble policy decisions or administrative actions, the judiciary risks overstepping its role, undermining the authority of Parliament and the government.
- Threat to Separation of Powers: The doctrine of separation of powers, which ensures that each branch operates independently, is jeopardized when the judiciary assumes functions beyond adjudication.
Adding to these concerns, Dhankhar referenced troubling allegations involving the discovery of semi-burnt currency notes at the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma. While he avoided elaborating on the specifics, the mention served to highlight broader questions about judicial integrity and the need for greater transparency within the system.
Accountability: A Democratic Imperative
A key pillar of Dhankhar’s argument was the stark contrast in accountability between India’s governing institutions. Elected governments face constant scrutiny, from parliamentary debates to electoral consequences, ensuring they remain answerable to the public. The judiciary, however, operates in a realm where such checks are limited. “When the judiciary governs, who do we question? Who do we hold accountable at the polls?” Dhankhar asked, pointing to a fundamental challenge in maintaining democratic equilibrium.
The Vice President urged for a harmonious coexistence among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, warning that any overreach by one institution threatens the stability of the others. “Our democracy thrives when all three pillars flourish within their domains,” he asserted, calling for a renewed commitment to the principles that underpin India’s constitutional framework.
A Broader Reflection on Democratic Values
Dhankhar’s speech resonates with ongoing discussions about the judiciary’s role in India’s dynamic democracy. The Supreme Court has earned acclaim for its interventions in areas such as human rights, environmental protection, and social justice, often stepping in where other institutions have faltered. Yet, its assertive approach has also drawn criticism for crossing into the realms of policy and governance, raising questions about the appropriate boundaries of judicial authority.
The controversy surrounding the President’s directive and the use of Article 142 has amplified concerns about the judiciary’s impact on democratic processes. By framing these actions as an assault on “democratic forces,” Dhankhar has tapped into anxieties about the preservation of checks and balances, a cornerstone of India’s governance model. His remarks highlight the need for a delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability, ensuring that the judiciary serves as a protector of rights without becoming an unchecked authority.
Charting the Path Forward
The Vice President’s critique may mark a pivotal moment in India’s democratic journey, prompting calls for reforms to address judicial overreach. Potential measures could include:
- Clarifying Article 142: Establishing precise criteria for invoking “complete justice” to minimize subjectivity and ensure consistency in judicial decisions.
- Enhancing Oversight Mechanisms: Developing frameworks to review judicial actions that impact legislative or executive functions, while safeguarding the judiciary’s autonomy.
- Promoting Transparency: Addressing allegations of misconduct through independent and transparent processes to restore public faith in the judiciary.
These reforms, however, must navigate the complex task of preserving judicial independence while addressing legitimate concerns about overreach. Dhankhar’s speech has set the stage for a robust debate, challenging policymakers, legal experts, and citizens to reflect on the future of India’s democratic institutions.
A Call to Action
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s impassioned address has brought the issue of judicial overreach to the forefront of India’s public discourse. His personal concern—“I never imagined I would witness such a day in our democracy”—underscores the urgency of addressing these challenges. As India stands at a crossroads, the path forward will require thoughtful dialogue, principled leadership, and a shared commitment to upholding the values that define the nation.
The debate sparked by Dhankhar’s remarks is not merely about the judiciary but about the soul of India’s democracy. It is a call to ensure that the legislature, executive, and judiciary work in concert, each respecting the boundaries that sustain a vibrant and resilient republic. As the nation grapples with these questions, one thing is certain: the conversation about the judiciary’s role in India’s future is only beginning.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1.What did Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar say about the Indian judiciary?
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, in a speech on April 17, 2025, accused the Indian judiciary of overstepping its constitutional role by acting as a “super Parliament.” He criticized the Supreme Court for setting a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills and invoking Article 142 to deem ten pending bills as assented, calling it a “nuclear missile” against democratic forces.
2.What is Article 142 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to issue any order or decree necessary to achieve “complete justice” in cases before it. Intended as an extraordinary remedy for situations where laws are inadequate, it has been criticized for its vague wording and potential for judicial overreach.
3.Why is Article 142 controversial?
Article 142 is controversial due to its subjective definition of “complete justice,” which allows judges broad discretion. Critics, including Dhankhar, argue it enables the judiciary to encroach on legislative and executive domains, violating the separation of powers and lacking accountability.
4.What is judicial overreach, and why did Dhankhar highlight it?
Judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary takes on roles reserved for the legislature or executive, such as policymaking or administrative decisions. Dhankhar highlighted it to express concern that the Supreme Court’s actions, like directing the President, undermine democratic accountability and institutional balance.
5.What are the broader implications of this controversy for Indian democracy?
The controversy raises questions about the balance of power among India’s legislature, executive, and judiciary. It has sparked debates about judicial accountability, the scope of Article 142, and the need for reforms to ensure each institution respects its constitutional boundaries while preserving democratic principles.
