 |
|
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's recent pronouncements have ignited a fiery debate regarding the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of the Indian government. His assertion that Parliament is supreme and that elected representatives are the 'ultimate masters' of the Constitution has been met with both support and criticism, raising fundamental questions about the interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court as its guardian. Dhankhar's remarks, delivered at a Delhi University event, represent a continuation of his ongoing critique of the judiciary, particularly concerning its perceived overreach and its interpretation of constitutional provisions. He has specifically targeted the Supreme Court's stance on the Preamble, citing conflicting verdicts in the Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati cases, as well as its handling of the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975. Dhankhar's argument hinges on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the idea that the elected legislature holds ultimate authority and that its decisions should not be subject to undue interference from other branches of government. He views the Supreme Court's intervention in matters that he believes fall within the legislative domain as an encroachment on the powers of Parliament and a violation of the democratic mandate conferred upon elected representatives. This perspective is rooted in a particular interpretation of the Constitution, one that prioritizes the role of the legislature in shaping the nation's laws and policies. However, critics argue that Dhankhar's views undermine the principle of judicial review, which is a cornerstone of India's constitutional framework. Judicial review empowers the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions, ensuring that they comply with the fundamental rights and principles enshrined in the Constitution. This power is seen as essential for safeguarding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens against potential abuses of power by the government. By questioning the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, Dhankhar is seen by some as challenging the very foundations of India's constitutional democracy. The debate surrounding Dhankhar's remarks also touches upon the sensitive issue of Article 142 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court special powers to pass orders that are enforceable across the country and are 'necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.' Dhankhar has previously criticized the use of Article 142, referring to it as a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces.' He argues that the Supreme Court has used this provision to overstep its boundaries and interfere in matters that are properly within the purview of the executive and legislative branches. His concerns are echoed by some members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who have accused the Supreme Court of judicial overreach in cases where it has exercised its powers under Article 142. However, legal experts and constitutional scholars have defended the Supreme Court's use of Article 142, arguing that it is a necessary tool for ensuring justice and protecting the rights of citizens in situations where other remedies are inadequate or unavailable. They point out that the Supreme Court has used Article 142 to address a wide range of issues, including environmental protection, human rights, and social justice. The controversy surrounding Dhankhar's remarks highlights the ongoing tension between the different branches of government in India and the differing interpretations of the Constitution. It raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, and the role of each branch in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens. The debate is likely to continue in the coming months and years, as the Indian government and the judiciary grapple with the challenges of interpreting and applying the Constitution in a rapidly changing world.
The comments made by Congress leader and lawyer Abhishek Singhvi underscore the gravity of Dhankhar's pronouncements. Singhvi's assertion that the Vice President, holding the second-highest constitutional post, should refrain from such commentary emphasizes the potential destabilizing effect of questioning the Supreme Court's authority. He highlights a precedent of restraint among previous officeholders, suggesting that Dhankhar's actions deviate from established norms and potentially erode public trust in constitutional institutions. Singhvi's defense of the court's exercise of powers under Article 142 for 'complete justice' further solidifies the counter-argument to Dhankhar's concerns. This defense posits that the court's actions, even when perceived as assertive, are ultimately aimed at upholding the principles of justice and fairness within the legal framework. This divergence in perspectives underscores the fundamental philosophical differences regarding the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. Dhankhar's emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty suggests a belief in the primacy of elected representatives in shaping the legal and social landscape, while Singhvi's defense of judicial review reflects a commitment to the judiciary's role as a check on potential abuses of power and a protector of fundamental rights. The remarks by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey further complicate the issue, revealing a spectrum of opinions within the ruling party regarding the Supreme Court's role. While the BJP officially distanced itself from Dubey's comments, calling them 'personal statements,' the fact that such sentiments were expressed by a member of parliament highlights the underlying tensions between the government and the judiciary. Dubey's assertion that Parliament and State Assemblies should be shut down if the Supreme Court intervenes in every matter reflects a radical view of judicial overreach, one that fundamentally challenges the principles of separation of powers and judicial review. The Attorney General of India's decision to sanction criminal contempt of court proceedings against Dubey underscores the seriousness with which the government views his remarks. The contempt proceedings serve as a reminder of the limitations on freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing the judiciary and potentially undermining public confidence in the legal system. The Supreme Court's indirect response to the allegations of judicial overreach, through Justice BR Gavai's wry remark, suggests a degree of sensitivity to the criticism leveled against the court. Gavai's comment highlights the delicate balance that the judiciary must strike between exercising its powers to uphold the Constitution and avoiding the perception of encroaching on the domains of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of talk of 'judicial overreach' by ex-Supreme Court justice Ajay Rastogi provides a contrasting perspective, suggesting that concerns about the court's activism may be overblown. Rastogi's assertion that Parliament has the power to amend provisions in the event of disagreement with the court highlights the ultimate authority of the legislature in shaping the legal framework. This perspective underscores the importance of engaging in constructive dialogue and finding common ground between the different branches of government, rather than resorting to adversarial rhetoric.
The core of the conflict lies in differing interpretations of the Constitution and the delicate balance of power it establishes. Dhankhar's perspective appears to favor a more literal interpretation of parliamentary sovereignty, where the will of the elected representatives holds paramount sway. He seems to view the Supreme Court's interventions as a potential impediment to the legislative process, hindering the implementation of policies and laws enacted by the Parliament. This view, however, overlooks the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring that laws are consistent with the constitutional framework. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review serves as a check against potential abuses of power by the legislature, preventing the enactment of laws that violate fundamental rights or undermine the principles of democracy. This power is not intended to obstruct the legislative process but rather to ensure that it operates within the bounds of the Constitution. The debate surrounding Article 142 further illustrates the complexities of the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. Dhankhar's characterization of Article 142 as a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces' reflects a deep-seated concern about the potential for the Supreme Court to overstep its boundaries and interfere in matters that are properly within the purview of the other branches of government. However, proponents of Article 142 argue that it is a necessary tool for ensuring justice in situations where other remedies are inadequate or unavailable. The Supreme Court has used Article 142 to address a wide range of issues, from environmental protection to human rights, often in cases where the executive and legislative branches have failed to act. The controversy surrounding Dhankhar's remarks also raises questions about the role of public discourse in shaping constitutional interpretation. His decision to publicly criticize the Supreme Court, while serving as Vice President, has been met with both support and criticism, highlighting the complexities of balancing freedom of speech with the need to maintain public confidence in constitutional institutions. The debate surrounding Dhankhar's remarks is not merely a legal or constitutional issue; it is also a political and social issue, reflecting the broader tensions and disagreements within Indian society regarding the role of government, the protection of individual rights, and the interpretation of the Constitution. Finding a way to reconcile these competing perspectives and foster a more constructive dialogue between the different branches of government will be crucial for ensuring the long-term stability and prosperity of India's democratic institutions. The emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty should not come at the cost of undermining the judiciary's role as a guardian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights. Similarly, the exercise of judicial review should be tempered by a respect for the democratic mandate conferred upon elected representatives. Ultimately, a healthy democracy requires a balance of power and a spirit of cooperation between the different branches of government, with each branch fulfilling its constitutional role while respecting the autonomy and authority of the others. The path forward lies in engaging in constructive dialogue, fostering a deeper understanding of the Constitution, and working together to find common ground that upholds the principles of democracy, justice, and the rule of law.
Source: "No Authority Above Parliament": Jagdeep Dhankhar Rips Into Supreme Court