Constitutional Crisis: 5 Shocking Ways VP Dhankhar’s Attack on Supreme Court Threatens Judicial Independence

India’s Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar faces fierce backlash after questioning the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 142—a constitutional provision enabling judicial intervention to ensure “complete justice.” Opposition leaders, including Congress, TMC, and DMK, condemned his remarks as undermining judicial independence, emphasizing that “only the Constitution is supreme.”

Dhankhar’s criticism of the Court’s timeline for presidential assent to bills sparked accusations of executive overreach, with TMC demanding his resignation for “attacking democracy’s pillars.” Legal experts like Kapil Sibal defended Article 142 as vital to check executive arbitrariness, stressing the President’s role as titular, bound by Cabinet advice. The clash highlights deepening institutional friction, reviving debates about judicial overreach versus accountability, and risks eroding public trust in democratic checks.

Opposition unity underscores a shared commitment to safeguarding constitutional balance, urging dialogue over confrontation to preserve India’s democratic fabric.

Constitutional Crisis: 5 Shocking Ways VP Dhankhar’s Attack on Supreme Court Threatens Judicial Independence

India’s political landscape is embroiled in a heated constitutional debate after Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar questioned the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 142, igniting fierce backlash from opposition parties. The controversy centers on the judiciary’s role in balancing legislative and executive powers, with critics accusing Dhankhar of undermining judicial independence—a cornerstone of Indian democracy.

The Core of the Controversy: Article 142 and Presidential Authority

Dhankhar’s critique targeted two critical issues:

• Article 142: The Vice President likened this constitutional provision—which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders ensuring “complete justice”—to a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.” He argued that such sweeping judicial authority risks destabilizing India’s institutional equilibrium.

• Presidential Assent Timelines: Dhankhar contested a recent Supreme Court ruling that mandated deadlines for the President to act on bills, calling it an overreach into executive functions.

Opposition leaders swiftly countered, asserting that Dhankhar’s remarks flout constitutional principles. Congress leader Randeep Surjewala emphasized, “In our democracy, only the Constitution is supreme,” defending the judiciary’s role as a check against executive overreach.

Opposition’s United Front: Defending Judicial Independence

The backlash transcended party lines, with leaders from Congress, TMC, RJD, and DMK uniting to condemn Dhankhar’s stance:

• TMC’s Demand for Resignation: MP Kalyan Banerjee labeled Dhankhar’s comments “derogatory” and called for his immediate resignation, stating that his position as Rajya Sabha Chairman demands neutrality.

• DMK’s Constitutional Critique: Rajya Sabha MP Tiruchi Siva stressed that Dhankhar’s remarks violate the separation of powers doctrine, warning against conflating the President’s titular role with unchecked authority.

• RJD’s Call for Balance: Manoj Kumar Jha urged institutions to avoid public spats, advocating for “constructive engagement over conflict” to preserve democratic integrity.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal delivered a scathing rebuttal, questioning Dhankhar’s grasp of constitutional norms. “The President acts on Cabinet advice, not personal discretion,” Sibal clarified, defending Article 142 as essential for correcting systemic injustices.

Why This Debate Matters: A Historical Perspective

The friction between India’s judiciary and executive is not new. Past governments have clashed with courts over landmark rulings (e.g., the Kesavananda Bharati case, which cemented the “basic structure” doctrine). However, Dhankhar’s comments revive urgent questions:

• Judicial Overreach vs. Executive Accountability: While critics argue that courts occasionally encroach on legislative domains (e.g., policy-making), others see judicial intervention as vital when elected bodies fail to act (e.g., environmental crises or legislative paralysis).

• The President’s Role: The Supreme Court’s timeline ruling aims to prevent indefinite delays in bill assent—a practice opposition parties claim has been exploited to stall progressive legislation.

Broader Implications for Indian Democracy

This clash underscores a growing trend of institutional friction in Indian politics:

• Erosion of Trust: Public confidence in institutions diminishes when constitutional officeholders openly critique their counterparts.

• Selective Acceptance of Verdicts: As Sibal noted, the government’s tendency to celebrate favorable rulings while rejecting others risks politicizing judicial outcomes.

• Global Precedent: Democracies worldwide grapple with balancing judicial independence and legislative sovereignty. India’s resolution of this conflict could set a benchmark.

The Path Forward: Dialogue Over Confrontation

RJD’s Jha aptly summarized the need for inter-institutional sensitivity. Rather than public sparring, mechanisms like all-party consultations or expert committees could address concerns about judicial authority. Meanwhile, reaffirming the Constitution’s supremacy—as opposition leaders urge—remains non-negotiable.

As India approaches the 2025 elections, this debate could shape voter perceptions of governance and the rule of law. The judiciary’s ability to act as a democratic “nuclear missile” against injustice—to borrow Surjewala’s metaphor—depends on preserving its independence while respecting constitutional boundaries.