Judiciary Overreach? 5 Shocking Ways India’s Supreme Court Ruling Challenges Democracy

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has ignited a national debate by accusing the Supreme Court of overstepping its constitutional role, labeling its recent ruling—imposing a 3-month deadline for presidential assent to state bills—as a “nuclear missile” undermining democracy. The verdict, criticized for rewriting Articles 200 and 201 without legislative input, has raised alarms over judicial overreach, with Dhankhar arguing unelected judges cannot act as a “super Parliament” by dictating timelines absent in the Constitution.

Critics warn this erodes the President’s deliberative role, while supporters view it as a necessary check on partisan delays. The controversy amplifies concerns about accountability, highlighted by delayed disclosures in a judge’s corruption case, fueling public distrust. As tensions between judicial activism and democratic governance escalate, the clash underscores urgent questions: Can courts balance oversight without usurping legislative power? And who guards India’s constitutional boundaries when institutions collide? The outcome may reshape India’s democracy, demanding clarity to preserve checks and balances. 

Judiciary Overreach? 5 Shocking Ways India’s Supreme Court Ruling Challenges Democracy

A fiery debate over the separation of powers in India’s democracy has erupted after Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar accused the Supreme Court of acting as an “unelected super Parliament,” overstepping its constitutional mandate. The controversy centers on a recent Supreme Court ruling that critics argue undermines the executive and legislative branches, sparking concerns about judicial overreach and accountability.

The Trigger: A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling 

On April 8, a two-judge Supreme Court bench ruled in The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu that the President and Governors must decide on pending bills within three months. If not, the bill would automatically become law. The decision invoked Article 142, which empowers the court to pass orders “necessary for doing complete justice.” While hailed by some as a check on executive delays, the ruling faced backlash for imposing timelines absent in the Constitution’s Articles 200 and 201, which govern gubernatorial and presidential assent.  

Dhankhar’s Critique: “Nuclear Missile” Against Democracy 

VP Dhankhar, a constitutional expert and former Governor himself, condemned the verdict as a breach of the judiciary’s role. “The Supreme Court’s mandate is to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it,” he asserted, arguing that the court’s directive to the President—an office integral to Parliament—effectively amended constitutional provisions without legislative input.  

He reserved sharp criticism for Article 142, calling it a “nuclear missile” enabling judicial overreach. “When unelected judges legislate, execute policies, or act as a ‘super Parliament’ without accountability, democracy is at risk,” he stated, highlighting that judges are immune from prosecution under existing laws.  

Constitutional Roles Under Scrutiny 

The Constitution designates the President as part of Parliament (Article 79), with Governors acting as constitutional intermediaries between states and the Centre. By setting deadlines, the court’s ruling encroaches on the President’s deliberative role, Dhankhar argued. “The President’s oath binds them to protect the Constitution. Rushing such decisions risks undermining due diligence,” he added.  

Legal experts are divided. Some support the ruling as a remedy for partisan delays by Governors, while others warn it sets a dangerous precedent. “Time limits might streamline governance, but the judiciary cannot fill legislative gaps,” said a senior advocate, speaking anonymously.  

Broader Concerns: Accountability and Transparency 

Dhankhar also cited the delayed disclosure of unaccounted cash found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence in March, questioning the judiciary’s transparency. “For seven days, the public was unaware. Only media reports forced accountability,” he said, stressing that institutions must uphold the rule of law uniformly.  

The incident has fueled public skepticism about judicial accountability, with Dhankhar urging introspection: “When an institution the nation reveres is under scrutiny, silence is not an option.”  

The Bigger Picture: Checks and Balances 

This clash underscores a growing tension between India’s branches of government. Historically, the judiciary has stepped in during legislative-executive deadlocks (e.g., the NJAC verdict). However, Dhankhar’s remarks reflect mounting unease about whether such interventions disrupt democratic balance.  

Critics argue that while judicial activism can curb executive excesses, it must not morph into governance. “Courts should guide, not govern,” noted constitutional scholar Subhash Kashyap. “Reinterpreting the Constitution’s spirit without textual basis risks eroding its structure.”  

The Path Ahead 

The ruling has ignited calls for clarity on constitutional boundaries. Potential solutions include:  

• Constitutional Amendments: Clarifying Articles 200/201 to codify timelines through legislative channels.  

• Larger Benches: Ensuring pivotal constitutional decisions involve majority consensus within the Supreme Court.  

• Judicial Accountability Frameworks: Revisiting protocols for addressing misconduct within the judiciary. 

As Dhankhar concluded, “Democracy thrives when institutions respect their lanes. The people’s mandate, not judicial diktats, must shape governance.” The ball now lies in Parliament’s court—to either challenge the ruling or legislate solutions that preserve both judicial oversight and democratic integrity.