Why the contemptuous tirade by VP Dhankar and BJP MPs against the judiciary is costly for our democracy
While overt closeness between the judiciary and executive is a marker of eroding liberal democratic principles, excessive friction, as seen through recent contemptuous remarks by constitutional functionaries, undermine the judiciary’s integrity before the masses
Published on: 20 April 2025, 09:51 am
WHILE DESCRIBING ARTICLE 142 of the Constitution of India as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7,” Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar voiced strong concerns over the judiciary’s drift into executive and legislative functions.
The trigger for his remarks was the judgement that the Supreme Court delivered on April in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu. The dispute arose after the Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi, withheld assent to ten bills passed by the state legislature without offering any reasons or returning them for reconsideration. When the legislature re-enacted the bills and sent them back, the Governor instead reserved them for the President’s consideration.
The Court held that such a conduct violated Article 200 of the Constitution, which permits the Governor to either assent, withhold (and return), or reserve a bill—but not indefinitely delay. Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Court deemed the ten bills as having received assent.
Vice President Dhankar questioned the constitutional basis of this judgment, and warned that the judiciary was turning into a “super parliament” that believed that it could dictate terms to the constitutional functionaries. This amounted to a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers, and emphasised that it was especially unsettling as the judiciary consistently resists attempts when other branches try to check its powers and processes.
Can constitutional officeholders, who are expected to act as neutral guardians of the Constitution, publicly question the provisions of the Constitution and actions of the judiciary in such a brazen and pointed manner?
In a similar vein on Saturday, Members of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party, Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma launched a sharp attack on the Supreme Court, accusing it of judicial overreach and undermining the Parliament’s authority. “If the Supreme Court has to make laws, then Parliament should be shut down,” Dubey said. He accused the judiciary of stepping into the roles of the legislature and executive, citing rulings like the decriminalisation of homosexuality and striking down of Section 66(A) of the IT Act as examples.
Referring to the Court’s handling of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, Dubey alleged a double standard compared to the Ram Mandir case, and even claimed, “The Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country.”
Dinesh Sharma added that no one, not even the judiciary, can question the President or direct Parliament.