‘On what basis?’ Jagdeep Dhankar launches all out attack on SC for setting deadline on President’s assent to State Bills

‘On what basis?’, Jagdeep Dhankar criticised the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing judicial review of presidential and gubernatorial assent on state bills, questioning the basis of such directives and asserting concerns over judicial overreach into executive functions.

Supreme Court’s historic ruling seems to have sent ripple effect in an apparent Executive versus Judiciary of the Indian governance.

VP Dhankar Launches All-Out Attack on Supreme Court

Addressing the 6th batch of Rajya Sabha interns, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar launched a multi-pronged attack on Supreme Court of India over recent judgement.

On Judicial Intervention in President’s Assent

Dhankhar said the President of India is a very elevated position and takes the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. “There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country?” Dhankar attacked the highest seat of Judiciary in India.

“President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super-parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them,” the Vice President said.

“We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There, it has to be five judges or more… Article 142, Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to judiciary 24 x 7”, he said about the provision granting special powers to Supreme Court.

SC Ruling on Prez, Guv’s Nos to State Bills

The Supreme Court of India has permitted judicial intervention if Governors delay assent to legislative bills for an extended period.

The apex court noted that the President must take a decision within three months on bills referred by governors. The Supreme Court invoked Article 143, in noting that the President of India ‘ought’ to seek the apex court’s opinion.

The Supreme Court bench said, “…governor does not hold the power to exercise ‘absolute veto’ on any bill, we see no reason why the same standard would also not apply to the President under Article 201 as well. The President is not an exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our Constitution. Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts.”

The Supreme Court passed the judgement in response to a November 2023 petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the State’s Governor indefinitely withholding assent to ten Bills passed by the State Assembly, some as early as 2020.

Supreme Court’s special powers ‘nuclear missile’

Dhankar said that that Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court special powers, “has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24×7”.

On Yashwant Sinha Cash Recovery Case

Jagdeep Dhankar also spoke about the massive cash haul from the home of now Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma.

“An event happened on the night of 14th and 15th of March in New Delhi, at the residence of a judge. For seven days, no one knew about it. We have to ask questions to ourselves. Is the delay explainable? Condonable? Does it not raise certain fundamental questions? In any ordinary situation, and ordinary situations define rule of law – things would have been different. It was only on 21st March, disclosed by a newspaper, that people of the country were shocked as never before.

Flagging the fact that no FIR was registered, Dhankar said, “An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any Constitutional functionary, including the one before you. One has only to activate the rule of law. No permission is required. But if it is Judges, their category, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,”.