VP Jagdeep Dhankhar questions Supreme Court’s power under Article 142, calling it a “nuclear missile,” igniting a national debate on judicial overreach and constitutional balance.
WHY IN NEWS
Judiciary under scrutiny as Jagdeep Dhankar VP critiques Supreme Court’s expansive powers under Article 142. Also Vice President labels Article 142 “NUCLEAR MISSILE”.
OVERVIEW
On April 17, 2025, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar created a constitutional stir by comparing Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to a “nuclear missile” in the judiciary’s hands. His statement, made while addressing Rajya Sabha interns, was in reference to a Supreme Court judgment laying down a time frame for the President with respect to state bills. According to Dhankhar, can courts constitutionally direct the actions of the President? It has opened the debate again on judicial limits and democratic checks and balances.
KEY CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS
- Article 142: Grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders necessary for “complete justice” in any matter pending before it.
- Context of the Statement:
- The Supreme Court on April 8,2025 has ruled that “the president shall act on the bills forwarded after the Governor reserves them for consideration within three months”.
- This followed a long delay by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in assenting to ten bills of the state
- Dhankhar’s Position:
- Asserted that the judiciary should not overstep into domains reserved for the executive.
- Called Article 142 a powerful judicial tool capable of unsettling constitutional equilibrium if misused.
- Backlash: Leaders of opposition parties and the legal community condemned the remark as a violation of constitutional morality and an assault to judicial sovereignty.
LEGAL INSIGHTS
- Separation of Powers: Dhankhar’s statement highlights the growing conflict between the court, executive branch, and legislative.
- Scope of Article 142: Despite its unusual nature, Article 142 has been utilized to preserve fundamental rights, address institutional delays, and provide comprehensive justice (e.g., Ayodhya, Bhopal Gas case).
- Judicial vs Executive Role: The VP’s critique reflects tensions between institutions, especially when the judiciary steps in to address executive inaction — like delayed assent to bills.
- Accountability Question: Although the legislative and executive are subject to electoral accountability, the judiciary is constrained by legal precedent and ethics, which begs the question of what “accountability” for judges should include.
- Federalism at Stake: Dhankhar’s criticism has an indirect effect on the constitutional dynamics between the Center and the State, as the original SC ruling addressed relations between the two and the Governor’s authority.
IMPACT ON CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONING
- Potential chilling effect on judicial activism and use of Article 142.
- Requests for judicial accountability measures like independent oversight or judicial reforms are strengthened.
- May request judicial review or clarification about the application of Article 142.
- Risk of a constitutional conflict between the president, the judiciary, and parliament, the three main branches of government.
WHY IT MATTERS
The incident is focused beyond an individual statement, as it resonates with the very soul of Indian constitutionalism. It necessitates a reconsideration of the extent to which enforced accountability through judiciary would go in the absence of any legislative or executive action. Article 142, while being a linchpin of the powers of the court in dispensing justice, should also be used judiciously in the greater context of ‘court-harmony–critical’.
Source– Twitter
Also Read– GOVERNOR BILL TIMELINES NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BY SC
