 |
|
The Indian political and legal landscape is currently witnessing a significant debate concerning the supremacy of institutions, particularly the Parliament and the Judiciary, with the Constitution as the central point of reference. This debate was ignited by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's assertion of Parliament's supremacy, a statement promptly challenged by Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, who emphasized the Constitution as the ultimate authority. This exchange underscores a fundamental tension within the Indian system of governance: the balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and their respective roles in upholding the constitutional framework. Sibal's response, delivered through social media platform X, directly countered Dhankhar's view, stating unequivocally that neither Parliament nor the Executive holds supreme power, but rather the Constitution itself. He further emphasized the role of the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the Constitution's provisions, highlighting a long-standing understanding of the law within the country. This viewpoint aligns with the established principles of constitutionalism, which prioritize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, binding all institutions and individuals, including the Parliament and the Executive. The debate extends beyond mere theoretical arguments, encompassing recent Supreme Court judgments that have drawn criticism from certain BJP leaders and the Vice-President. Sibal defended these judgments, asserting their consistency with constitutional values and their guidance by national interest. This defense is crucial in maintaining the judiciary's independence and its ability to act as a check on the other branches of government. The Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring its application in specific cases is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system, guaranteeing that laws passed by Parliament and actions taken by the Executive adhere to the constitutional framework. Dhankhar's remarks, delivered in his capacity as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, doubled down on his criticism of the judiciary, arguing that elected representatives are the ultimate masters of constitutional content. This perspective challenges the established understanding of the Constitution as a fixed document, interpreted by the judiciary to adapt to changing social and political realities. His statement raises concerns about the potential for political interference in judicial matters and the undermining of the judiciary's independence. The timing of these remarks coincides with a massive debate following the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, which set a deadline for the President and Governors to clear Bills passed by the legislature for the second time. This judgment has been interpreted by some as an encroachment on the powers of the executive branch, sparking further controversy. The Supreme Court's bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, further clarified that only courts have the prerogative to provide recommendations regarding the constitutionality of a Bill, urging the Executive to exercise restraint in such matters. This assertion reinforces the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional issues and its responsibility to ensure that laws comply with the Constitution's provisions.
Dhankhar's criticism of the judgment extended to Article 142, which grants special powers to the Supreme Court, labeling it a 'nuclear missile against Democratic forces.' This characterization reflects a deep-seated concern about the potential for judicial overreach and the erosion of the separation of powers. He argued that the judgment directs the President of India, a position of great importance and sworn to protect the Constitution, to decide on matters within a time-bound manner, which he believes encroaches on the President's discretion. Dhankhar's concern is that this could lead to a situation where judges legislate, perform executive functions, and act as a super-parliament, without accountability. This line of argument raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of judicial power and the appropriate level of judicial intervention in matters of governance. Furthermore, his remarks highlight the tension between the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional principles and the potential for judicial decisions to be perceived as interfering with the functioning of the executive and legislative branches. The controversy surrounding the Supreme Court's judgment has also drawn in other political figures, with BJP MP Nishikant Dubey suggesting that Parliament should be shut down if the Supreme Court makes all decisions. Dubey's statement represents an extreme reaction to the perceived overreach of the judiciary, highlighting the growing frustration among some political actors with the court's activism. He also accused the Supreme Court of inciting religious wars by questioning the historical basis of certain religious sites. These remarks underscore the highly charged political climate surrounding the debate on judicial power and the potential for such debates to escalate into broader conflicts. BJP leader Dinesh Sharma echoed Dubey's sentiments, stating that no one can challenge the President, implying that the President is supreme. These statements reflect a lack of understanding of the separation of powers doctrine, where each branch of government has its own distinct role and responsibilities, and none is inherently superior to the others. The BJP leadership, however, attempted to distance itself from the remarks made by Dubey and Sharma, with party president JP Nadda stating that the party neither agrees with nor supports such statements. This distancing suggests that the BJP is aware of the potential damage that such inflammatory rhetoric can cause and is attempting to maintain a more moderate stance on the issue of judicial power.
The Opposition, however, accused the ruling party of threatening the judiciary and trying to weaken it, highlighting the political divisions surrounding the debate on judicial power. This accusation suggests that the Opposition views the BJP's criticism of the judiciary as part of a broader strategy to undermine the court's independence and influence. Senior Supreme Court judges have acknowledged the critical remarks directed at the judiciary, with Justice BR Gavai, who is set to become Chief Justice of India, noting that the court is being accused of encroaching on the Executive's domain. This acknowledgment indicates that the judiciary is aware of the criticism and is taking it seriously. Justice Surya Kant, the third most senior judge in the Supreme Court, stated that the institution of the judiciary comes under attack every day, but that they are not worried. This statement reflects a determination to uphold the judiciary's independence and to resist political pressure. Top government sources have attempted to strike a conciliatory tone, stating that respect for the judiciary is paramount and that all pillars of democracy are working in tandem for a Viksit Bharat. This statement appears to be a balancing act, aiming to de-escalate the controversy and reaffirm the government's commitment to the rule of law. The ongoing debate surrounding the supremacy of institutions in India is a complex and multifaceted issue, with significant implications for the country's political and legal landscape. The debate underscores the importance of maintaining a delicate balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and the need for all institutions to adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The role of the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the Constitution and the protector of fundamental rights is crucial in safeguarding the integrity of the Indian legal system and ensuring that the government acts within the bounds of its constitutional powers. The debate also highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in balancing its role as a check on the other branches of government with the need to maintain public confidence and avoid political interference. Ultimately, the resolution of this debate will require a commitment from all stakeholders to uphold the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers, and to engage in constructive dialogue to address the underlying issues and concerns.
Source: "Constitution Is Supreme": Kapil Sibal Counters Vice President Dhankhar