India’s Vice President Sparks Controversy Over Judicial Power Struggle -

A sharp constitutional clash has emerged at the highest levels of the Indian republic, with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar openly questioning a recent Supreme Court ruling and, more broadly, the judiciary’s interpretation of its powers. The controversy centers around the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment setting a timeline for the President to act on state bills, a move aimed at ensuring accountability and legislative efficiency. However, the Vice President’s reaction has sparked a nationwide debate on the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislature.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court judgment at the heart of the controversy was delivered in the context of increasing delays by governors in granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures. In the Tamil Nadu case, the Court ruled that once a governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration, the President must decide within a reasonable time—specifically, three months. This judgment was based on Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution, interpreted through the lens of Article 142, which empowers the Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice.”

The ruling was seen as a necessary check on the increasing politicization of gubernatorial offices, which, in many states, have stalled legislative bills indefinitely, sometimes due to political differences with the ruling state governments.

Vice President Dhankhar’s Remarks

Speaking at a public event, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar described the Court’s ruling as a case of “judicial overreach” and warned against the misuse of Article 142, which he termed a “nuclear missile” in the judiciary’s hands. “Can the judiciary really set timelines for the President? This disrupts the balance envisioned by the makers of the Constitution,” he said.

He expressed concern that the judiciary was encroaching upon the exclusive domain of the executive. “The principle of separation of powers must be respected. Article 142 is not a blanket license for the Court to legislate or issue directives to constitutional authorities like the President of India,” Dhankhar asserted.

These remarks have stirred significant controversy, particularly because they come from the Vice President who also serves as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, one of the highest constitutional offices in the country.

Opposition and Legal Experts React

The Vice President’s comments drew swift backlash from multiple quarters. Leaders of opposition parties such as the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), and DMK accused Dhankhar of undermining the judiciary. Congress MP Jairam Ramesh said, “It is highly inappropriate for the Vice President to publicly criticize a judgment of the Supreme Court. He is supposed to uphold constitutional propriety, not challenge it.”

TMC MP Derek O’Brien went a step further, stating, “If the Vice President does not respect the judiciary’s independence, he should resign. His comments are politically motivated and erode public trust in institutions.”

Legal experts are divided. Some constitutional scholars have defended the Supreme Court, noting that Article 142 has historically been used to bridge constitutional gaps and deliver justice. “This provision exists precisely for complex cases where traditional remedies are insufficient. Setting a timeline ensures that bills are not left in a legislative limbo,” said senior advocate Indira Jaising.

Others have supported the Vice President’s concerns. “The judiciary must be careful not to assume executive functions. Article 142 is extraordinary in nature and should be used sparingly,” said former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi.

The Larger Constitutional Question

At the heart of this controversy is a deeper, long-standing question: Where should the line be drawn between judicial intervention and overreach?

The Indian Constitution envisages a delicate balance between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, each acting as a check on the other. However, in recent years, the judiciary has been accused—particularly by the executive of stepping into policy domains. The vice president’s comments have reignited this debate.

The use of Article 142 has often led to sweeping changes: from ordering reforms in cricket administration to mandating environmental protections. However, setting timelines for the President, a role deemed above partisan politics, has triggered questions about constitutional propriety.

Conclusion

The tussle between the Vice President and the Supreme Court is not merely about one judgment it is emblematic of the evolving power dynamics between India’s three pillars of democracy. While the judiciary’s intention to ensure timely decision-making is commendable, the Vice President’s concerns about overreach cannot be dismissed lightly.

As India navigates this constitutional moment, what remains crucial is the commitment of all institutions to the spirit of the Constitution: mutual respect, institutional balance, and democratic accountability. The current debate may ultimately compel a clearer delineation of powers something the framers of the Constitution envisioned, but left open for interpretation in a maturing democracy.

Sources:

More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

Vice President Dhankhar’s Remarks

Opposition and Legal Experts React

The Larger Constitutional Question

Conclusion

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply