The Vice President’s Critique: A Constitutional Debate or Judicial Overreach?

In recent days, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has found himself embroiled in a heated debate following his remarks about the judiciary. His criticism, particularly of a recent Supreme Court ruling, has raised questions about the proper limits of judicial power and the extent to which constitutional officeholders can publicly voice concerns about the judiciary. As the controversy grows, it forces us to confront larger issues related to judicial overreach, the balance of power among constitutional institutions, and the importance of preserving judicial independence in India’s democracy.

Dhankhar’s Concerns: Judicial Overreach or Constitutional Necessity?

On April 8, 2025, a division bench of the Supreme Court issued a judgment that set a three-month deadline for the President and Governors to grant assent to state Bills reserved for their consideration. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar strongly criticized this ruling, contending that it encroached on the executive’s constitutional powers. In a speech at the valedictory function of the 6th Rajya Sabha Internship Program, Dhankhar argued that the Court’s intervention in the matter was an overreach, suggesting that it was assuming responsibilities better suited for the executive or the legislature.

In his remarks, Dhankhar highlighted his concerns about the increasing use of Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court significant discretionary powers, calling it a “nuclear missile” that could undermine the democratic fabric of the nation. He also pointed to the lack of accountability for judges, mentioning the case involving Justice Yashwant Varma, where semi-burnt cash was allegedly found at the judge’s residence but no investigation was conducted. Dhankhar expressed fears that unchecked judicial power could erode democratic principles and the delicate balance of India’s constitutional framework.

Media Reactions: Polarized Responses

Dhankhar’s criticism has not gone unnoticed. The media reaction has been sharply divided, reflecting the complex interplay of politics, ideology, and the principle of judicial independence in India. While some defend Dhankhar’s right to voice concerns, others accuse him of undermining the judiciary’s authority.

Left-Liberal Outlets: Defending Judicial Independence

Several left-leaning media outlets, including The Wire, The Leaflet, and the Times of India, have strongly criticized Dhankhar’s remarks. They argue that public criticism from a constitutional officeholder, especially the Vice President, can undermine the independence of the judiciary and its ability to function impartially.

The Leaflet accused Dhankhar of violating constitutional conventions by publicly questioning the judiciary. The article suggested that constitutional officeholders should act as neutral guardians of the Constitution and avoid such direct criticism of the judiciary. It further warned that such remarks could erode public trust in the judicial system, which relies on the public’s confidence in its impartiality. According to The Leaflet, Dhankhar’s comments were a breach of constitutional morality and might even lead to contempt of court.

Similarly, The Wire framed Dhankhar’s criticism as politically motivated, aligning it with the broader BJP narrative against the judiciary. The outlet sought to discredit Dhankhar by pointing to his political history, citing his previous party-switching as evidence of opportunism. The article contended that Dhankhar’s remarks were not born out of constitutional concern, but rather from political expediency.

Defenders of Dhankhar: A Call for Scrutiny

In contrast, supporters of Dhankhar argue that his remarks were grounded in genuine concern for the balance of power among India’s three branches of government. They maintain that, as Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar is duty-bound to raise concerns when he believes the judiciary is overstepping its bounds, particularly when judicial decisions encroach on the powers of the executive or legislature.

Dhankhar’s critics, they argue, often overlook the substance of his concerns and focus instead on the political implications of his criticism. His remarks were not an attack on the judiciary as an institution, but rather a call for greater scrutiny of judicial decisions that have the potential to undermine democratic processes. Supporters claim that it is important to have a conversation about the growing power of the judiciary, especially in matters that traditionally fall within the executive or legislative domain. This, they argue, is essential for a healthy democracy where all branches of government maintain checks and balances.

The Bigger Question: Judicial Independence vs. Accountability

The central issue at the heart of this debate is the tension between judicial independence and accountability. While the judiciary must remain independent to ensure fair and impartial judgments, there is a growing concern about the increasing power of the courts and the potential for overreach.

Judges, as Dhankhar points out, operate with relative immunity, which makes it difficult to scrutinize their decisions or hold them accountable for perceived overreach. In a democracy, elected representatives such as the President and Governors are accountable to the people, but judges often aren’t subject to the same level of scrutiny. Critics argue that this creates an imbalance where one branch of government becomes too powerful, potentially undermining the checks and balances system intended by the Constitution.

At the same time, defenders of judicial independence argue that the judiciary must be insulated from political pressures to preserve its integrity and ensure impartiality in its judgments. In their view, public criticism from constitutional officeholders like Dhankhar could undermine the judiciary’s autonomy and encourage partisan attacks.

The Role of Constitutional Functionaries: Maintaining Balance

The Vice President’s office, while largely ceremonial, plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. As the presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha, the Vice President is constitutionally obligated to ensure the smooth functioning of the Upper House. However, as Dhankhar’s comments suggest, this role also extends to defending the integrity of constitutional processes and raising concerns about judicial overreach when it undermines the authority of other constitutional offices.

In a healthy democracy, all institutions must be open to scrutiny. No office should be above criticism, and public figures, including constitutional officeholders like Dhankhar, have a duty to engage in open discussions about the functioning of government institutions. Silencing such debates risks undermining the very principles of democracy and transparency that are foundational to India’s political system.

A Call for Constructive Dialogue

As the debate surrounding Dhankhar’s criticism of the judiciary continues, it is crucial that the media, political figures, and constitutional officeholders engage in constructive dialogue. Instead of focusing on partisan attacks, the nation would benefit from a broader discussion on the role of the judiciary in India’s democracy, the proper limits of judicial power, and the need for a balanced distribution of powers among the three branches of government.

The fundamental question is not whether the judiciary is above criticism, but how such criticism can be articulated in a way that respects the integrity of all constitutional institutions. Open discourse and informed debate are vital for the health of India’s democracy. The criticism of Dhankhar’s remarks, therefore, should be viewed not merely as a political issue but as a vital discussion about the balance of power within India’s constitutional framework. By fostering such conversations, India can ensure that its democratic institutions remain robust, accountable, and committed to justice and fairness.