Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s Blistering Attack on Judiciary: A Wake-Up Call or Constitutional Clash?
In recent weeks, Indian democracy has witnessed a heated exchange at the highest levels of constitutional authority, with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar launching a scathing critique of the judiciary. His remarks, interpreted as a strong rebuke to the Supreme Court, have stirred a nationwide debate on the balance of power among the three pillars of democracy: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary.
The Vice President’s remarks came in response to a significant Supreme Court judgment related to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction on several bills passed by the state legislature. In a landmark move, the Supreme Court set a three-month deadline for the President of India to act on bills reserved by a Governor. It also advised that the President may consider referring constitutional questions arising from such delays to the Supreme Court for clarity.
This judgment, unprecedented in its reach, was intended to uphold the federal structure and democratic accountability in legislative processes. However, it also raised serious questions regarding the scope of judicial power, especially when it comes to issuing directives to the President of India, a position safeguarded from judicial scrutiny under normal constitutional norms.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks, made in a public address, were unusually candid and confrontational. He questioned the very premise of the judiciary’s directive, saying:
“We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India, and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3).”
He expressed concern that some judges were overstepping their constitutional mandate and behaving like a “super Parliament.” By invoking the doctrine of separation of powers, Dhankhar suggested that the judiciary should refrain from encroaching upon the functions reserved for the legislature and the executive.
The Constitution of India envisages a clear demarcation between the three branches of government. While the Legislature makes laws, the Executive implements them, and the Judiciary interprets and ensures their conformity with the Constitution.
However, in a dynamic democracy like India, the boundaries between these institutions often blur, especially when one branch is seen as failing in its responsibilities. The judiciary, over the years, has adopted an increasingly activist role, particularly through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and constitutional interpretation. While many laud this activism as necessary to uphold democratic values, others, like Vice President Dhankhar, view it as a threat to institutional harmony.
Dhankhar’s criticism reignites a long-standing debate: is judicial activism strengthening democracy, or is it morphing into judicial overreach?
- Supporters of Judicial Activism argue that the courts are merely filling a governance vacuum. When the executive delays, and the legislature is ineffective, the judiciary steps in to safeguard constitutional values, citizens’ rights, and federal balance.
- Critics assert that such interventions threaten the principle of checks and balances, with unelected judges wielding disproportionate power over elected representatives and constitutional authorities like the President or Governors.
The Tamil Nadu case reflects this tension. The Supreme Court’s directive was an attempt to prevent executive inaction from undermining state legislatures, but it also set a precedent that some believe may undermine the authority of the Union Executive.
Dhankhar’s remarks, while controversial, underscore a critical juncture in India’s democratic evolution. His speech signals that constitutional friction among institutions is no longer just theoretical—it is now public, political, and persistent.
This confrontation should not be viewed merely as a turf war. It must be seen as a call for introspection by all pillars of democracy:
- The judiciary must ensure its activism does not become authoritarianism.
- The executive must not remain passive and defer governance challenges to the courts.
- The legislature must reclaim its central role in law-making and democratic deliberation.
Vice President Dhankhar’s outburst is not an isolated comment—it is a reflection of deeper anxieties within India’s constitutional framework. While the judiciary’s intent may be to protect democratic processes, intent must align with restraint. The need of the hour is not conflict but cooperative constitutionalism.
Judicial activism is indeed a double-edged sword. When used judiciously, it acts as a guardian of democracy; when wielded excessively, it risks tilting the delicate balance of powers. As India marches forward, the focus should be on preserving the spirit of the Constitution, not merely its letter.
