VP Dhankhar Criticizes Supreme Court for Overstepping Constitutional Limits in Presidential Directive

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has raised serious concerns. He views a recent Supreme Court order as judicial overreach. The order directed the President of India to act within a specified timeframe on bills referred by state governors. Speaking to a group of Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar questioned the constitutional validity of such directives. He warned against courts acting as a “super Parliament.”

Judges Should Not Override the Constitution, Says VP

During his address, Dhankhar expressed alarm over the judiciary assuming roles traditionally reserved for the legislature and executive. He referenced a recent court decision. In this decision, the President was instructed to act within a deadline. He asked rhetorically, “Where are we heading as a nation?” He emphasized the unique stature of the President. He noted that while others swear to uphold the Constitution, the President’s oath carries the highest constitutional authority.

The Vice President asserted that issuing directives to the President undermines democratic principles and sets a troubling precedent. “On what constitutional basis can the judiciary issue orders to the Head of State?” he asked. He highlighted that judicial interpretation of the Constitution should only be done by a constitution bench. This bench must consist of at least five judges, under Article 145(3). He also criticized the frequent use of Article 142. He called it a “nuclear missile” always available to the judiciary to override democratic norms.

Concerns Over Separation of Powers and Lack of Judicial Accountability

VP Dhankhar expressed dismay at what he perceives as judges encroaching upon legislative and executive domains. He warned that this could lead to a situation where laws are made and enforced by unelected and unaccountable authorities. “We cannot allow a system where judges legislate, execute, and have zero accountability,” he remarked.

Raises Questions on Justice Verma Cash Case Investigation

He also brought up the recent case involving alleged cash recovery from the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma in Delhi. Dhankhar criticized the delayed response. He also addressed the lack of transparency and questioned why it took seven days for the incident to become public. He asked whether the three-judge panel investigating the matter has any legal standing under the Constitution. Dhankhar emphasized that statutory law grants Parliament alone the power to take action in such cases. “One month has passed. The investigation must be urgent and thorough to preserve key evidence,” he said.

Background: Supreme Court on Bills Sent to President

The Supreme Court recently ruled on the time frame for presidential decisions. A governor must send a bill to the President under Article 201 of the Constitution. An approval or rejection must occur within three months. The verdict came in response to a petition challenging delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in processing state assembly bills.

The court made it clear that the President does not possess a “pocket veto.” Indefinite delays are not constitutionally permissible. The ruling further stated that a bill returned to the governor after assembly reconsideration must be given assent. The governor must give assent. This must be done without further delay.

The bench also censured Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi. It warned that non-compliance with constitutional timelines could be subjected to judicial review. The court emphasized that governors are constitutional functionaries. It reminded them not to behave like political actors. Governors should not be roadblocks to legislative processes.

Dhankhar’s statements underline an intensifying debate over the separation of powers in India. They highlight the growing tension between the judiciary and other branches of government. His remarks have sparked discussions over the appropriate roles and boundaries of each institution in a functioning democracy.