New Delhi: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent remarks criticising the judiciary, especially over the Supreme Court’s directive on a timeline for the President’s assent to bills, have ignited a political firestorm.
Dhankhar called Article 142—a provision granting the Court the power to ensure ‘complete justice’—a “nuclear missile” against democratic forces.
His sharp comments were met with strong backlash from Kapil Sibal, a former Congress leader and an SC lawyer, who slammed the Vice President’s attack as unconstitutional, emphasising that the judiciary’s powers are enshrined in the Constitution, and cautioning against undermining its independence.
Dhankar’s ‘nuclear missile’ remark
In an attack on the judiciary of the country, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday, April 17, questioned the Supreme Court’s setting a timeline for the President of India to take decisions and act as a “super Parliament”, saying the Supreme Court cannot fire a “nuclear missile” at democratic forces. Dhankhar’s strong words to the judiciary came during his speech to Rajya Sabha interns, days after the Supreme Court sought to fix a timeline for the president to grant assent to the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor.
“So, we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and absolutely have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them,” Dhankhar said. The vice president also described Article 142, which grants plenary powers to the Supreme Court, as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24×7”. “Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces (and) available to (the) judiciary 24×7,” he said.
Article 142 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to issue orders that ensure “complete justice” in any matter before it. This power is also known as the Supreme Court’s “plenary power”. “There is a directive to the president by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, becomes law,” Dhankhar said.
The vice president said his worries were at a “very highest level” and he had never thought in “my life” that he would have the occasion to see it. He reminded the audience that the president of India is in a very elevated position. “(The) president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Others, including ministers, the vice president, parliamentarians and judges, take an oath to abide by the Constitution,” Dhankhar said. “We cannot have a situation where you direct the president of India, and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There, it has to be five judges or more…,” he said.
Sibal slams Dhankhar’s unconstitutional critique
However, his comments were not well received by the Opposition parties who slammed the RS speaker. Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal slammed Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday for questioning the judiciary over the timeline for the president to take decisions, saying this is “unconstitutional” and he had never seen any Rajya Sabha chairman make “political statements” of this nature. A day after Dhankhar used strong words against the judiciary, Sibal asserted that the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman remain equidistant between the opposition and the ruling party, and cannot be the “spokesperson of the party”.
“Everyone knows that the Lok Sabha Speaker’s chair is in between. He or she is the Speaker of the House, not the speaker of one party. They also don’t vote, they only vote when there is a tie. The same is with the upper house. You are equidistant between the opposition and the ruling party,” the senior advocate said at a press conference here. “Everything you say must be equidistant. No speaker can be the spokesperson of a party. I don’t say that he (Dhankhar) is but no Speaker in principle can be the spokesperson of any party. If it appears so then the dignity of the chair is lowered,” Sibal asserted.
Slamming Dhankhar for his remarks, Sibal said, “If you give such statements it will look as if judiciary is being taught a lesson. It Is not neutral and not constitutional.” “I have never seen any chairman of the House make political statements of this nature. Even BJP chairman in the past (have not done so),” Sibal said, hitting out at Dhankhar. Sibal said he was saddened and surprised by the statement of Dhankhar.
“Judicial institutions – high courts or Supreme Courts, if there is faith in any institution, it is the judiciary. I feel that when government people do not like the decisions of the judiciary then the start accusing that it (judiciary) has gone beyond its limit. When they like it and the opposition says something then they say it is the decision of the Supreme Court,” the former Congress leader said. When someone raises questions about Article 370 or Ramjanam bhoomi judgement, the government people point out that it is a Supreme Court decision, he said.
Sibal defends judiciary’s role, questions executive delays
“When (Justice J B) Pardiwala judgement came, they say how can the Supreme Court say this. The judgement which you do not like is wrong and which is as per your thinking, it is fine. It is not right for a constitutional functionary to say such a thing,” Sibal said referring to Dhakhar’s remarks.
“I respect him a lot but you said article 142 is nuclear missile material, how can you say this? Article 142 has given powers to the Supreme Court and it is given by the Constitution, it is not by the government it is the Constitution to do complete justice,” Sibal said.
He also pointed out that the President of India is a titular head and acts on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. “The governor acts on the aid and advice of the council of ministers in a state. So when a bill is passed it goes to the governor, the governor can make comments and send it back but if passed again, the governor has to give an assent as stated in the Constitution. The governor can send the bill to the president. President acts on the aid and advice of the ministers, so the matter goes to the Centre. The president does not have personal powers,” he said.
Dhankar said how can president’s power be curtailed, Sibal noted and wondered who is curtailing the power of the President. Can the governor sit for two years on a bill that is important for people, Sibal asked and added that this amounts to an intrusion on the supremacy of the legislature. “If you have a problem with a judgement, call for a review. If there are still problems, take an advisory opinion from Supreme Court,” Sibal said.
“He (Dhankhar) talked about 1984 but did not talk about 2002. You talked about an emergency bit not undeclared emergency that is going on, you did not talk about capture of institutions,” Sibal said in a scathing criticism of Dhankhar’s comments. He said it seems that he only talks about what happened in Congress governments and not after 2014.
“We moved an impeachment motion against judge of a high court in December; it was signed by more than 50 members. We are in April, it took five months to find out whether those signatures are genuine or not. How many more months would it take?” Sibal said. “If you do not with expedition decide the matter then the argument for us is that we cannot do anything. If the governor doesn’t not clear bills, the judiciary cannot do anything,” he said. If the executive doesn’t do its job the judiciary has to intervene, Sibal asserted.
Article 142 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to issue orders that ensure “complete justice” in any matter before it.
(With inputs from PTI)
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Syeda Faiza Kirmani | 
