Article 142 Has Become a 'Nuclear Missile': Vice President Dhankhar Criticizes Supreme Court's Direction to President

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar didn't mince his words when he recently criticized a Supreme Court judgment that set deadlines for the President to decide on Bills referred by the Governors. Speaking candidly, he said Article 142 of the Constitution has turned into a "nuclear missile" in the hands of the judiciary, aimed at democratic institutions.

"There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country?," Dhankhar asked, questioning the very direction India's democracy is taking.

The Vice President was referring to a Supreme Court ruling connected to the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in granting assent to Bills passed by the State Assembly. Not only did the Court lay down a timeline for the Governor, but it also directed that if the President, under Article 201, fails to act on a referred Bill within a prescribed period, the States could move the Courts seeking a writ of mandamus against the President.

'Judicial Overreach' and the Role of Judges

Expressing deeper concerns about the separation of powers, Dhankhar said,"We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super-parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them."

While addressing Rajya Sabha interns, he pointed to Article 145(3) of the Constitution, which requires that substantial constitutional issues must be decided by a bench of at least five judges. Yet, this critical decision, he noted, was passed by only two judges.

Dhankhar highlighted that when Article 145(3) was framed, the Supreme Court had only eight judges. Now, with 31 judges on the bench, he believes it's time to raise the minimum number required for a Constitution Bench.

"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). There, it has to be five judges or more... Article 142, Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to judiciary 24 x 7," Dhankhar added.

Consultation with the Court on Bills' Constitutionality

In its ruling, the Supreme Court also mentioned that if a Governor refers a Bill to the President based on concerns about its constitutionality, the President should first seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 before making a decision.

Dhankhar Also Raises Alarm Over Cash Scandal

The Vice President then shifted focus to another matter involving the judiciary — the discovery of unexplained cash at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma in Delhi.

"An event happened on the night of 14th and 15th of March in New Delhi, at the residence of a judge. For seven days, no one knew about it. We have to ask questions to ourselves. Is the delay explainable? Condonable? Does it not raise certain fundamental questions? In any ordinary situation, and ordinary situations define rule of law - things would have been different. It was only on 21st March, disclosed by a newspaper, that people of the country were shocked as never before."

He noted that it was only after media exposure that the Supreme Court made public disclosures acknowledging that something was wrong.

"Thereafter, fortunately, in public domain, we had input from authoritative source, the Supreme Court of India. And the input indicated culpability. Input did not lead to doubt that something was amiss. Something required to be investigated. Now the nation waits with bated breath. The nation is restive because one of our institutions, to which people have looked up always with highest respect and deference, was put in the dock," Dhankhar said.

He questioned why no FIR was registered and criticized the fact that an internal judicial panel was handling the inquiry, without any transparency in the findings so far. He also flagged that many judges have not yet made public disclosures of their personal assets.