<p class="bodytext">Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s all-out attack on the judiciary is most improper, and amounts to a gross violation of the responsibilities of the Constitutional office he holds. He has said judges are usurping the roles of the legislature and the executive. The immediate reason for his sharp comments is the Supreme Court’s order prescribing a time limit for the President to grant assent to bills forwarded by state Governors. In his view, the judiciary cannot give directions to the President and act as a ‘super Parliament’. He also said that the court has “absolutely no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them”. These are strong words and they assume special importance because they come from a person in an onerous position. </p>.Why we must strengthen legislative law-making.<p class="bodytext">The most egregious comment is that Article 142, on the basis of which the Supreme Court prescribed a time line for the President and the Governors to take a decision on bills, is a "nuclear missile against democratic forces’’. Dhankhar took oath as Vice-President, declaring that he would ‘’bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution’’. Article 142 is a part of the Constitution and criticising it in such strong terms amounts to a violation of his oath of office. He has also sought an amendment to Article 145(3), which deals with the composition of Supreme Court benches that decide questions of law. This is strange because he is criticising a Constitutional provision that defines how the Supreme Court should function. The Constitution has divided powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and given the judiciary the power of judicial review to scrutinise the actions of the other organs. Even the President is not above the Constitution. The court has only exercised its powers under the Constitution. Dhankhar has in effect questioned the exercise of this power. It is not wrong to criticise and comment on the judgements of the Supreme Court. But it is debatable whether a person holding a high Constitutional office should do that in public in such strong terms. Dhankhar has gone even beyond that and criticised the judiciary, its procedures, and even the Constitution. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Dhankhar is a serial offender. In the past, he has questioned the power of the court to strike down laws passed by parliament and cast doubts even on the basic structure of the Constitution. He has gone far beyond the remit of his office. Others have taken his cue, and their comments are turning out to be a concerted political attack on the judiciary. </p>
<p class="bodytext">Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s all-out attack on the judiciary is most improper, and amounts to a gross violation of the responsibilities of the Constitutional office he holds. He has said judges are usurping the roles of the legislature and the executive. The immediate reason for his sharp comments is the Supreme Court’s order prescribing a time limit for the President to grant assent to bills forwarded by state Governors. In his view, the judiciary cannot give directions to the President and act as a ‘super Parliament’. He also said that the court has “absolutely no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them”. These are strong words and they assume special importance because they come from a person in an onerous position. </p>.Why we must strengthen legislative law-making.<p class="bodytext">The most egregious comment is that Article 142, on the basis of which the Supreme Court prescribed a time line for the President and the Governors to take a decision on bills, is a "nuclear missile against democratic forces’’. Dhankhar took oath as Vice-President, declaring that he would ‘’bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution’’. Article 142 is a part of the Constitution and criticising it in such strong terms amounts to a violation of his oath of office. He has also sought an amendment to Article 145(3), which deals with the composition of Supreme Court benches that decide questions of law. This is strange because he is criticising a Constitutional provision that defines how the Supreme Court should function. The Constitution has divided powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and given the judiciary the power of judicial review to scrutinise the actions of the other organs. Even the President is not above the Constitution. The court has only exercised its powers under the Constitution. Dhankhar has in effect questioned the exercise of this power. It is not wrong to criticise and comment on the judgements of the Supreme Court. But it is debatable whether a person holding a high Constitutional office should do that in public in such strong terms. Dhankhar has gone even beyond that and criticised the judiciary, its procedures, and even the Constitution. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Dhankhar is a serial offender. In the past, he has questioned the power of the court to strike down laws passed by parliament and cast doubts even on the basic structure of the Constitution. He has gone far beyond the remit of his office. Others have taken his cue, and their comments are turning out to be a concerted political attack on the judiciary. </p>
