 |
|
The recent comments made by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar regarding the Supreme Court's authority have ignited a firestorm of criticism from opposition leaders across the political spectrum. Dhankhar's remarks, specifically targeting the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution and its directives concerning presidential assent to bills, have been perceived as an attack on the judiciary's independence and a violation of constitutional norms. The opposition's response has been swift and vehement, with some leaders even calling for Dhankhar's resignation, underscoring the severity of the perceived breach of constitutional propriety. The crux of Dhankhar's argument, as articulated in his public statements, revolves around his concern that Article 142 has been weaponized as a 'nuclear missile' against democratic forces. He questioned the Supreme Court's authority to issue directives to the President of India and raised concerns about the bench size required for constitutional interpretations, particularly in light of the increasing number of judges in the Supreme Court. Dhankhar's sentiments have resonated with some, particularly within the ruling party, who view judicial overreach as a potential threat to the balance of power between the different branches of government. However, the opposition vehemently rejects this characterization, arguing that the Supreme Court's role as the guardian of the Constitution necessitates its ability to intervene when constitutional principles are threatened. The opposition's response has been multifaceted, encompassing legal arguments, political rhetoric, and appeals to constitutional principles. Leaders from various opposition parties have issued statements condemning Dhankhar's remarks and defending the Supreme Court's authority. They argue that Dhankhar's comments undermine the judiciary's independence and erode public trust in the institutions of democracy. Furthermore, they contend that Dhankhar's interpretation of Article 142 is flawed and that the Supreme Court's power to ensure complete justice under this provision is essential for safeguarding constitutional rights and preventing abuses of power. Senior Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala, despite acknowledging Dhankhar's experience and intellect, expressed his profound disagreement with the Vice President's stance. Surjewala characterized the Supreme Court's verdict as 'timely, courageous, and correct,' emphasizing that even high offices like the President or Governors are not immune to constitutional checks. He asserted that the Constitution of India is the supreme authority and that judicial independence is crucial for striking down injustice, arbitrariness, and misuse of power. Surjewala warned against granting unchecked authority to the President or Governors, arguing that it would render elected legislatures powerless and undermine the very foundations of democracy. His comments highlight the opposition's concern that Dhankhar's remarks could pave the way for executive overreach and a weakening of the judiciary's ability to hold the executive accountable.
Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee launched a particularly scathing attack on Dhankhar, accusing him of repeatedly making derogatory remarks about the judiciary. Banerjee argued that such behavior is unbecoming of someone holding a constitutional position and demanded Dhankhar's resignation. He stated that Dhankhar does not deserve to remain in the post of Vice President of India, asserting that he cannot attack one of the pillars of democracy. Banerjee's remarks underscore the deep animosity that Dhankhar's comments have generated within the opposition ranks. His call for Dhankhar's resignation reflects the opposition's belief that Dhankhar has fundamentally violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to hold a constitutional position. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Kumar Jha adopted a more nuanced approach, urging for a more balanced and sensitive approach among all institutions of democracy. Jha stressed the need for constructive engagement instead of conflict, cautioning against confrontations that could damage institutional integrity. While Jha did not explicitly call for Dhankhar's resignation, his comments implicitly criticize Dhankhar's confrontational style and his perceived lack of sensitivity towards the judiciary. Jha's emphasis on the need for balance and constructive engagement reflects a broader concern within the opposition that Dhankhar's remarks could exacerbate tensions between the executive and the judiciary, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Tiruchi Siva slammed Dhankhar's comments as 'unethical,' asserting that they violate the principle of separation of powers. Siva backed the Supreme Court's ruling, which set timelines for presidential assent, as a step towards protecting legislative authority from indefinite delays. He emphasized that no constitutional authority can override bills passed by elected legislatures. Siva's comments highlight the opposition's concern that Dhankhar's remarks could undermine the legislative branch and embolden the executive to disregard the will of the people as expressed through elected representatives. His support for the Supreme Court's ruling underscores the opposition's belief that the judiciary has a vital role to play in protecting legislative authority from executive overreach.
Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal also criticized Dhankhar’s comments, expressing disappointment and questioning his understanding of constitutional principles. Sibal said he was 'saddened and surprised' by Dhankhar’s remarks, particularly the comparison of Article 142 to a 'nuclear missile.' He defended the judiciary as one of the most trusted institutions and accused the government of selectively accepting court rulings based on political convenience. Sibal clarified that Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to ensure complete justice and stressed that the President is a titular head who acts solely on the advice of the Cabinet. He warned against distorting this framework and criticized the Vice President for questioning the court’s composition in key verdicts. Responding to Union ministers who echoed Dhankhar’s concerns, Sibal said the bench size is determined by the Court itself and must be respected. He also raised concerns over attempts to undermine the judiciary’s role. The controversy surrounding Dhankhar's comments raises fundamental questions about the relationship between the different branches of government in India and the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. The opposition's strong reaction underscores the importance they place on judicial independence and their concern that Dhankhar's remarks could undermine public trust in the institutions of democracy. The debate over Article 142 and the Supreme Court's authority is likely to continue to be a contentious issue in Indian politics for the foreseeable future. The differing interpretations of the Constitution and the competing visions for the balance of power between the branches of government will continue to fuel political divisions and shape the course of Indian democracy. Ultimately, the resolution of this controversy will depend on a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and a commitment to upholding the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The future of Indian democracy hinges on the ability of its leaders to bridge the divides that separate them and to work together to build a stronger and more just society.
The incident highlights the ongoing tension between the judiciary and the executive in India, a dynamic that is not new but has been exacerbated by recent events and pronouncements. The Supreme Court's role as a check on executive power is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, and any perceived attempt to undermine that role is met with strong resistance, particularly from the opposition parties. Dhankhar's comments are seen by some as part of a broader trend of the executive branch seeking to exert greater control over the judiciary, a concern that has been echoed by legal scholars and civil society organizations. The debate also touches upon the interpretation of the Constitution itself. While some argue for a more literal and strict interpretation, others advocate for a more flexible and contextual approach that takes into account the evolving needs of society. This divergence in constitutional philosophy underlies many of the disagreements between the judiciary and the executive, as well as between different political parties. The controversy also underscores the importance of public discourse and the role of the media in shaping public opinion. The opposition has been effective in using the media to amplify its criticism of Dhankhar's comments and to frame the issue as a threat to judicial independence. The ruling party, on the other hand, has sought to downplay the controversy and to portray Dhankhar's remarks as legitimate concerns about judicial overreach. Ultimately, the impact of this controversy will depend on how it is perceived by the public and how it is used by different political actors to advance their own agendas. The controversy surrounding VP Dhankhar’s remarks on the Supreme Court serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions and the importance of safeguarding judicial independence. The opposition’s vehement reaction underscores the deep-seated concerns about executive overreach and the erosion of constitutional norms. The future of Indian democracy depends on the ability of its leaders to engage in constructive dialogue and to uphold the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The stakes are high, and the path forward requires a commitment to preserving the integrity of the judiciary and protecting the rights of all citizens.
The differing viewpoints expressed by various political leaders highlight the complex interplay of power, constitutional interpretation, and political strategy in India. While some emphasize the need for judicial restraint and adherence to a strict separation of powers, others prioritize the judiciary's role as a check on executive power and a protector of fundamental rights. These competing perspectives reflect underlying ideological differences and competing visions for the future of Indian democracy. The controversy also raises questions about the role of the Vice President in Indian politics. As the presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha, the Vice President is expected to be a neutral and impartial figure who upholds the dignity and decorum of the House. However, Dhankhar's remarks have been criticized as being partisan and divisive, potentially undermining his ability to effectively discharge his duties as Vice President. The controversy also has implications for the upcoming elections. The opposition is likely to use Dhankhar's remarks as a rallying cry to mobilize voters and to portray the ruling party as a threat to democracy. The ruling party, on the other hand, will likely seek to deflect criticism and to portray the opposition as being anti-national and opposed to judicial reform. The outcome of the elections will depend, in part, on how effectively each side is able to frame the issue and to persuade voters to support their respective positions. In conclusion, the controversy surrounding VP Dhankhar’s remarks on the Supreme Court is a significant event that has far-reaching implications for Indian politics and democracy. The opposition’s strong reaction underscores the importance of safeguarding judicial independence and upholding constitutional norms. The future of Indian democracy depends on the ability of its leaders to engage in constructive dialogue and to find common ground on the fundamental principles that underpin the nation's constitutional framework. The task ahead is challenging, but the stakes are too high to allow political divisions to undermine the integrity of the judiciary and the rights of all citizens. A renewed commitment to constitutionalism, the rule of law, and mutual respect among the branches of government is essential for ensuring the continued success of Indian democracy.
Source: 'Should resign immediately': Opposition slams VP Dhankhar's comments on SC