Vice President Dhankhar raises concerns over judicial use of Article 142 in recent Supreme Court verdict.
| Recent Issue – Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025, ruling that set a timeline for the President to assent to state bills. He described Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24×7,” expressing concern over the judiciary’s expanding role in legislative and executive domains . |
Background
The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed delays by Governors and the Union government in acting on bills passed by state legislatures. In the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu case, the Court ruled that the Governor’s prolonged inaction on ten bills was unconstitutional. It deemed that the bills had effectively received assent when re-enacted and presented again to the Governor on November 18, 2023 .
Key Facts
- Supreme Court on April 8, 2025, ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to state bills.It stated such inaction undermines the democratic process and is unconstitutional.The verdict was delivered in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu case.
- Court also mandated a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved for consideration.This was aimed at preventing arbitrary delays from both Governors and the Union. It emphasized that constitutional functionaries must act within a reasonable timeframe.
- Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judgment and called for judicial accountability.He likened Article 142 to a “nuclear missile” used by the judiciary to override democratic processes.Dhankhar warned against the judiciary acting like a “super Parliament” without checks.
Legal Provisions
Article 142 of the Constitution of India – “The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”
Explanation:
- This article grants the Supreme Court wide-ranging (plenary) powers to ensure “complete justice” in any case before it.
- It empowers the Court to go beyond the strict letter of the law if necessary, especially in situations where existing laws are inadequate or silent.
- For example, it can issue directions, orders, or decrees to fill legal gaps, protect rights, or prevent injustice—even if no specific statute provides for it.
- It has been used in landmark cases to shape policy, enforce guidelines, or undo constitutional wrongs.
Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India – Provides for the Supreme Court to decide cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution with a minimum of five judges.
Related Cases Involving Article 142
| Case Name | Year | Context of Article 142 |
| S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India | 1994 | The SC addressed arbitrary dismissal of state governments under Article 356. It ordered a floor test in Karnataka to prove majority, preserving democratic integrity. It reinforced federalism and curbed misuse of President’s Rule, though raised concerns about judiciary stepping into executive space. |
| Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India | 1992 | Though not central, Article 142 allowed the SC to balance equity in upholding 27% OBC quota with restrictions like the creamy layer and 50% ceiling. It showcased judicial innovation to secure social justice, going beyond statutory text for nuanced policy formulation. |
| Ayodhya Verdict | 2019 | SC used Article 142 to allot 5 acres of alternate land to the Sunni Waqf Board despite no legal mandate, to ensure peace and closure in a sensitive religious dispute. The judgment underscored Article 142’s role in reconciliation and delivering justice beyond conventional remedies. |
| Chandigarh Mayor Election Case | 2024–25 | SC nullified the mayoral election results due to proven misconduct and manipulation. Article 142 was invoked to directly declare the opposition candidate as the winner. It reaffirmed judicial role in upholding democratic sanctity but also raised fresh debates on overreach and separation of powers. |
Concerns Regarding Article 142
When Article 142 Used by the Supreme Court Over Parliamentary Functions
- Overstepping of Judicial Mandate: Article 142 grants the Supreme Court wide discretionary powers to deliver “complete justice,” but its use in matters traditionally reserved for Parliament—such as setting timelines for the President or Governor—can blur the lines between the judiciary and legislature. This raises concerns about the Court stepping into the domain of lawmaking and executive discretion.
- Lack of Accountability: While Parliament and the Executive are accountable to the people through elections and legislative oversight, the judiciary remains unelected and largely unaccountable. When Article 142 is used to override or direct legislative or executive processes, it invites criticism about unchecked power without corresponding responsibility.
- Judicial Overreach Allegations: In cases like State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor, critics argue that the Court’s directive to the President indirectly overrides constitutional conventions and undermines the spirit of parliamentary supremacy. This leads to debates about judicial overreach and whether the judiciary is reinterpreting the Constitution too expansively.
- Precedential Concerns and Inconsistency: There’s concern that frequent and varied use of Article 142 can lead to legal unpredictability. If used arbitrarily or without well-defined limits, it can create precedents where judicial directives substitute legislative procedures, causing confusion and weakening institutional clarity.
- Undermining Federalism: When the Supreme Court intervenes in Centre–State matters using Article 142, it may be viewed as centralizing power under the guise of justice delivery. States may perceive such interventions as undermining their legislative autonomy, especially when it involves state bills or Governor-related matters.
Analysis
Vice President Dhankhar’s remarks address concerns about the separation of powers and judicial overreach. His metaphor of Article 142 as a “nuclear missile” underscores the perceived potency of judicial authority. However, critics argue that Article 142 serves as a vital tool for the judiciary to address situations where existing laws fall short, ensuring complete justice .The Supreme Court’s directive aims to reinforce federalism and prevent constitutional paralysis due to executive inaction. By setting timelines, the Court seeks to uphold the democratic process and ensure that state legislation is not unduly stalled. The Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025, judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu ruled that Governor’s cannot indefinitely delay assent to state bills. Citing Article 142, the Court directed a three-month timeline for presidential action on reserved bills and deemed ten pending Tamil Nadu bills as passed. The judgment was seen as a step to uphold democratic governance and federalism. The verdict reignited the debate on separation of powers, with supporters praising the judiciary’s role in checking executive delays, while critics raised concerns about expanding judicial activism.
Conclusion
The controversy underscores the delicate balance between India’s democratic institutions. While judicial accountability is essential, the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles and ensuring timely governance actions remains crucial. Article 142, though powerful, is a constitutional provision designed to uphold justice when other mechanisms fail.
- GOVERNOR BILL TIMELINES NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BY SC
- SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN TN GOVERNOR’S BILL RESERVATION
