SC acting as super Parl, says VP on timeline for Prez

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday raised concerns over a recent Supreme Court ruling that mandated the President to decide on state Bills reserved by Governors within three months.

“We never bargained for a democracy where the President is bound by timelines… where judges legislate, perform executive functions, act as super Parliament and have absolutely no accountability because the law does not apply to them,” Dhankhar said while addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice-President’s Enclave.

A staunch advocate for the separation of powers, the Vice-President also questioned the absence of an FIR in the case involving the alleged recovery of cash from the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, who has since been transferred. If there are skeletons in the cupboard, they must tumble out, he said.

He further questioned the constitutionality of the three-member committee formed by the SC to probe the matter, pointing out that while the Vice-President, Prime Minister and parliamentarians are accountable under the law, judges are not.

Expressing dismay over the SC’s five-day-old ruling imposing timelines on the President, Dhankhar said, “I never thought I would see such a day. Only the President takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. All others —the PM, Vice-President, ministers, MPs and judges — take an oath to abide by it. Yet, a recent judgment directs the President?”

He noted while all MPs and MLAs were mandated to declare their assets, judges were exempt. “We cannot have a situation where you (the SC) issue directives to the President and on what basis?” he asked.

Dhankhar Article 142 of the Constitution which grants the Supreme Court discretionary powers to ensure complete justice had become a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24×7”.

He said the only right available to the SC was to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). “For this there have to be five judges or more but when Article 145(3) came into force, the number of judges in the SC was eight and five made the majority. Today the SC has 30 judges,” he said.

“At the time Article 145(3) was enacted, the SC had eight judges, making five a majority. Today, with 30 judges, this provision needs to be amended,” he argued.

Top News