The Supreme Court had for the first time laid down that the President must take a decision on Bills reserved for consideration by the Governor within three months from the date of receipt of such reference.
New Delhi: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s recent verdict setting a deadline for Presidents to sign Bills sent by states and expressed his concern about the judiciary usurping executive functions and acting as a “super Parliament”.
Recently, a judgment has been directed to the President. Where are we going? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of filing a review or not. We never bargained for this in democracy.” Citing the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu versus Governor case, Dhankhar said, “…So, we have judges who will make laws, who will do executive work, who will act as super parliament, and they will have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them.”
He further said, “We cannot create a situation where you give directions to the President of India and on what basis? The only power you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3)…The judges who virtually issued the order to the President and presented a scenario that it would be the law of the land have forgotten the power of the Constitution. How can that group of judges deal with something under Article 145(3), if it was protected it was for five out of eight.”Five out of eight means the interpretation will be by the majority. Well, five out of eight is more than a majority. But leave it at that. Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available round the clock to the judiciary”, he said.Addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha trainees at the Vice President Enclave, he referred to the incident of cash allegedly being found in the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma, a judge of the Delhi High Court. The judge has since been removed from the roster, and the Supreme Court has ordered an inquiry.
He said, “On the night of March 14 and 15, an incident took place at the house of a judge in New Delhi. Nobody came to know about it for seven days. We have to ask ourselves questions. Is the delay understandable? Is it excusable? Doesn’t this raise some fundamental questions? Under any normal circumstances, and normal circumstances define the rule of law – things would have been different.”
The Vice President, who has in the past underlined the need to ensure judicial accountability, said the inputs received from “the authoritative source, the Supreme Court of India” about the case “indicate culpability” but now the nation is anxiously waiting.
“The nation is restless because one of our institutions, which people have always looked up to with the highest respect and regard, has been put in the dock,” he said.
He further said that no, “at this moment investigation is going on under the law” as no FIR has been filed as according to the law, FIRs cannot be filed directly against judges.
He said, “It has to be approved by the concerned parties in the judiciary, but that is not provided in the Constitution. The Constitution of India has given immunity from prosecution only to the President and Governors. So how then has this immunity been given to a category beyond the law?”
Underlining the principle of separation of powers, he said, “…when the government is elected by the people, the government is accountable to the Parliament, the government is accountable to the people in the election. The principle of accountability works. In Parliament, you can ask questions, important questions, because governance is by the executive. But if this executive governance is by the judiciary, how can you ask questions?” He also referred to the order passed on January 27, 2025 by a seven-member Lokpal bench headed by a former Supreme Court judge, relating to investigation of corruption complaints against High Court judges.
He also referred to the January 27, 2025, order passed by a seven-member Lokpal bench headed by a former Supreme Court judge, relating to the probe into corruption complaints against high court judges.”…And then, it was stayed on one ground- independence of the judiciary. This independence is not a safeguard. This independence is not some kind of impenetrable blanket against probe, probe, probe. Institutions thrive on transparency and probe. The surest way to bring down an institution or a person is to give an absolute guarantee that there will be no probe, no probe or investigation,” he said.The Supreme Court had stayed the Lokpal order which said that the Lokpal has the power to look into complaints against sitting judges of high courts. On the issue of appointment of judges, he said the Constitution is clear that their appointment will be done with consultation under Article 124.
