Article 142: Supreme Court’s ‘Nuclear Missile’ Sparks 5 Alarming Constitutional Risks!

A constitutional clash erupted after India’s Supreme Court invoked Article 142—a provision granting it sweeping powers to ensure “complete justice”—to mandate that the President decide on state bills within three months. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar condemned the move, calling the article a “nuclear missile” enabling judicial overreach into executive functions. He argued the ruling undermines the President’s constitutional role and transforms the Court into a “Super Parliament,” blurring India’s separation of powers.

The decision, aimed at curbing partisan delays by governors in opposition-ruled states, has sparked debates about federalism and democratic accountability. Critics warn it risks centralizing authority in an unelected judiciary, while supporters view it as safeguarding legislative efficacy. This tension reflects India’s enduring struggle to balance judicial activism with institutional boundaries, testing the resilience of its constitutional framework in an era of polarized governance. 

Article 142: Supreme Court’s ‘Nuclear Missile’ Sparks 5 Alarming Constitutional Risks!

India’s constitutional framework is facing renewed scrutiny after Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s sharp criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent use of Article 142, a provision he likened to a “nuclear missile” threatening democratic processes. The controversy stems from a landmark ruling that intersects judicial authority, executive autonomy, and the delicate balance of power enshrined in India’s democracy.

What Is Article 142? 

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court unparalleled authority to ensure “complete justice” in cases before it. Key features include:  

• Broad Discretion: The Court can issue orders or decrees beyond existing laws to resolve cases comprehensively.  

• Nationwide Enforcement: Such rulings are binding across India.  

• Contempt Powers: The Court can compel compliance, including punishing contempt. 

Historically, Article 142 has enabled landmark judgments, such as resolving the Ayodhya dispute and enforcing environmental regulations. However, critics argue its expansive scope risks judicial overreach.  

The Trigger: Supreme Court’s Timeline Directive 

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the President must decide on bills reserved by state governors within three months. This decision addressed delays in states like Tamil Nadu, where governors (often central appointees) had stalled opposition-passed bills indefinitely. The Court cited Article 142 to justify its intervention, aiming to prevent executive obstruction.  

VP Dhankhar’s Objections 

As Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar condemned the ruling, framing it as a breach of constitutional boundaries:  

• Encroachment on Executive Authority: He argued that directing the President—a constitutional head with a sworn duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—undermines executive autonomy.  

• “Super Parliament” Critique: Dhankhar accused the judiciary of assuming legislative and executive roles, dubbing the Court a “Super Parliament” unaccountable to democratic processes.  

• Article 142 as a “Nuclear Missile”: He warned that deploying this provision to bind the President sets a dangerous precedent, allowing the judiciary to bypass democratic checks. 

The Core Debate: Separation of Powers 

The clash highlights a recurring tension in Indian governance:  

• Judicial Activism vs. Overreach: While the Court’s intent—to curb partisan delays—is valid, critics question whether imposing deadlines on the President crosses into executive territory.  

• President’s Unique Role: Unlike other officials, the President’s oath emphasizes safeguarding the Constitution, a duty Dhankhar argues is compromised by judicial mandates.  

• Historical Context: Similar conflicts arose when the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, asserting judicial independence over executive involvement in appointments. 

Why This Matters 

• Federalism at Stake: Governors’ delays in opposition-ruled states reflect broader center-state tensions. The Court’s ruling seeks to protect state legislatures but risks centralizing authority in the judiciary.  

• Democratic Accountability: Dhankhar’s critique underscores concerns about unelected judges wielding excessive power, potentially overshadowing elected bodies.  

• Precedent Setting: Expanding Article 142’s use could normalize judicial intervention in executive functions, altering India’s constitutional balance. 

The Path Ahead 

Legal experts are divided. Some laud the Court for reinforcing legislative efficacy, while others echo Dhankhar’s warnings. The ruling could face presidential review or legislative challenge, testing India’s commitment to checks and balances.  

In Conclusion: The Article 142 debate is more than a legal technicality—it reflects India’s ongoing struggle to balance judicial oversight with democratic governance. As Dhankhar’s remarks ignite discourse, the resolution of this conflict will shape whether India’s institutions collaborate as equals or descend into a hierarchy of power.