 |
|
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar has launched a strong critique against the Indian judiciary, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court's powers and recent judgments. His remarks come in the wake of a Supreme Court order related to Governor's assent to bills, which Dhankhar perceives as an overreach of judicial authority. He specifically targeted Article 142 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court special powers, characterizing it as a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces.' Dhankhar's statements highlight a growing tension between the executive and the judiciary, raising questions about the balance of power within the Indian democratic framework. The Vice-President's concerns extend beyond the specific Supreme Court order, delving into issues of judicial accountability and the handling of allegations against judges, particularly referencing a case involving a significant cash haul from the residence of a Delhi High Court judge. He questioned the delay in filing an FIR and the internal inquiry mechanisms within the judiciary, arguing that they potentially dilute the rule of law. Dhankhar, a seasoned lawyer himself, emphasized the importance of upholding the Constitution and ensuring that all institutions, including the judiciary, are held accountable. His comments reflect a broader debate about the role and responsibilities of the judiciary in a democratic society, particularly in relation to the other branches of government. The situation is further complicated by the historical context of judicial activism and the ongoing discussions about the separation of powers. Dhankhar's strong words underscore the need for a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the Indian legal system and the challenges of maintaining a healthy balance between the different pillars of democracy. The long-term implications of this growing divide between the executive and judiciary remain to be seen, but it is clear that the issue is one of paramount importance for the future of Indian governance. The Vice-President's intervention has ignited a public discourse that needs to be carefully followed by legal scholars, political analysts, and concerned citizens alike, since the stability and efficacy of our constitutional framework depend on the fair balance between these institutions.
The core of Dhankhar's argument revolves around the perceived expansion of judicial power at the expense of the executive and legislative branches. He asserts that the Supreme Court's actions, particularly the directive to the President regarding the timing of bill assent, constitute an overreach of judicial authority. According to Dhankhar, this infringes upon the President's constitutional role to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. His reference to Article 142 as a 'nuclear missile' signifies his belief that the provision is being used in a manner that undermines democratic principles. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees or orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Dhankhar's apprehension is that this broad power is being used to encroach upon the domains of the other branches of government. The Vice-President also voiced significant concerns regarding the alleged double standards in applying the rule of law to the judiciary. He emphasized that while an FIR can be registered against any constitutional functionary, including himself, the same is not true for judges. He highlighted that the prosecution of judges requires prior approval from within the judiciary, and argued that this creates a category of individuals who are effectively above the law. He questioned the legitimacy of the committee of three judges investigating the cash haul case, asking whether the constitution supports the existence of such a committee and whether its actions would be binding on the executive. Dhankhar's critique suggests that the judiciary should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and accountability as other branches of government.
Dhankhar's remarks regarding the cash haul case are particularly pointed. He questioned the delay in reporting the incident and the subsequent investigation, raising concerns about potential obstruction of justice. He lamented the fact that while an ordinary citizen would face swift action in a similar situation, the judicial system seemed to be moving at a glacial pace. He expressed his frustration with the internal inquiry mechanisms within the judiciary, arguing that they are inadequate for addressing serious allegations of misconduct. The Vice-President's call to 'blow up the can' and 'collapse the cupboard' is a metaphor for his desire to see transparency and accountability in the handling of the case. He believes that the truth should be revealed, even if it is uncomfortable or embarrassing for the judiciary. Dhankhar's intervention underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the integrity of the judiciary. If the public loses faith in the impartiality and fairness of the legal system, it could have serious consequences for the stability of the entire democratic framework. The cash haul incident serves as a stark reminder of the need for robust mechanisms for holding judges accountable for their actions. Dhankhar's comments are likely to fuel further debate about the independence and accountability of the judiciary, and could potentially lead to reforms in the way that allegations of misconduct are investigated and addressed. The situation highlights the complex interplay between the judiciary, the executive, and the public, and the challenges of balancing the need for judicial independence with the need for accountability.
The Supreme Court's recent order regarding the assent to bills by the President and Governors serves as a backdrop to Dhankhar's criticism. The Court's decision to set a deadline for the President to act on bills passed by the legislature has been interpreted by some as an infringement upon the executive's prerogative. Dhankhar's comments suggest that he shares this view, as he argues that the Court is effectively directing the President in a manner that is not authorized by the Constitution. The debate over the assent to bills raises broader questions about the relationship between the executive and the legislature. In a parliamentary system of government, the executive is typically drawn from the legislature, and there is a close relationship between the two branches. However, the President (or Governor, in the case of state legislatures) also has a constitutional role to play in ensuring that legislation is consistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court's intervention in this process has complicated the relationship between these three branches of government. Some argue that the Court is simply ensuring that the executive does not unduly delay the legislative process. Others, like Dhankhar, believe that the Court is overstepping its bounds and interfering with the executive's constitutional responsibilities. The debate over the assent to bills is likely to continue to be a source of tension between the different branches of government in India, and it is likely to be a subject of ongoing legal and political debate.
In conclusion, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's forceful critique of the judiciary underscores the growing tensions between the executive and judicial branches in India. His concerns regarding Article 142, the handling of the cash haul case, and the Supreme Court's order on the assent to bills highlight a complex interplay of constitutional principles and political considerations. The Vice-President's intervention is likely to fuel further debate about the role and responsibilities of the judiciary in a democratic society, and could potentially lead to reforms in the way that allegations of misconduct are investigated and addressed. The situation underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the integrity of the judiciary, and the need for robust mechanisms for holding judges accountable for their actions. The cash haul incident and the debate over the assent to bills serve as stark reminders of the challenges of balancing the need for judicial independence with the need for accountability. Dhankhar's statements highlight the need for a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the Indian legal system and the challenges of maintaining a healthy balance between the different pillars of democracy. The long-term implications of this growing divide between the executive and judiciary remain to be seen, but it is clear that the issue is one of paramount importance for the future of Indian governance. The Vice-President's intervention has ignited a public discourse that needs to be carefully followed by legal scholars, political analysts, and concerned citizens alike, since the stability and efficacy of our constitutional framework depend on the fair balance between these institutions.
Source: "Nuclear Missile Against Democratic Forces": Veep On Supreme Court Powers