Dear Leftist media, Judges are not beyond criticism, stop issuing Fatwas against Vice President Dhankhar for raising legitimate questions on the judiciary
What is a leftist rhetoric if it is not seeped in hypocrisy? The Indian leftist media rages against people or institutions when it suits their agenda, but slanders others for daring to criticise the same entities, that too, on valid grounds. Several left-liberal propaganda outlets, including The Wire, The Leaflet, and a rather mainstream one—Times of India—have launched an ad hominem attack on Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar over his recent criticism of the judiciary regarding the Supreme Court wielding Article 142 as “nuclear missile against democratic forces”.
Addressing the valedictory function of the 6th Rajya Sabha Internship Program, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar harshly criticised the recent Supreme Court verdict regarding the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. In the Judgment passed on 8th April, a division bench of the Supreme Court set a time limit, not envisaged in the Constitution, on the exercise of power to grant or refuse assent to a state Bill by the President and the Governor. The Supreme Court prescribed a deadline of 3 months on the President’s power to grant or refuse assent to a Bill reserved by the Governor for his consideration.
VP Dhankhar questioned the Supreme Court for issuing a direction to the President of India. He reminded the Supreme Court that its power is limited to interpreting the Constitution. “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). The President is called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, it 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 the law of the land does not apply to them,” said the Vice President.
The Vice President further pointed out that the judgment, which had the effect of modifying the concerned provisions, was delivered by a bench of two judges, which did not represent the majority of the total number of judges in the Supreme Court.
“When Article 145(3) was there, the number of judges in the Supreme Court was eight, 5 out of 8, now 5 out of 30 and odd. But forget about it, the judges who issued a mandamus virtually to the President and presented a scenario that it will be the law of the land, have forgotten the power of the Constitution. How can that combination of judges deal with something under Article 145(3) if preserved, it was then for five out of eight. We need to make amends for that also now. Five out of eight would mean interpretation will be by majority. Well, five constitutes more than the majority in eight. But leave that aside. Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24 x 7,” Dhankhar stated.
Amidst a constitutional standoff in the DMK-ruled Tamil Nadu, where Governor RN Ravi delayed assent to 10 bills, after which the state government sought Supreme Court intervention, VP Dhankhar also raised concerns over the judges allegedly performing executive functions, acting like a “Super Parliament” with “zero accountability”.
“Recently there was a directive to the President, by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for this. The President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, it 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,” VP Dhankhar said.
He also raised concerns over judicial impunity as he spoke about a lack of formal investigation in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, wherein semi-burnt cash was found at the judge’s residence.
The Vice President’s comments raising concern over judicial overreach, particularly, in matters involving a delicate balance of power among the judiciary, executive and legislature, did not sit well with leftists who take delight in masquerading as the champions of democracy, freedom of expression and whatnot but have qualms in muzzling the voice of those ideologically opposed to them, simply because the views of their do not align with the leftist agenda.
It should be a matter of national concern when the sitting Vice President of the country and Rajya Sabha chairman publicly questioned the actions of the Supreme Court, raising concerns regarding accountability in a democracy wherein elected representatives are subject to scrutiny but judges are nearly immune to all sorts of accountability and scrutiny. However, the leftist media cabal decided to do what it does best: attack the person speaking uncomfortable truths rather than addressing the concerns raised.
The Leaflet insinuates that the judiciary is sacrosanct, should not be criticised
In this vein, The Leaflet, a leftist propaganda outlet run by senior advocate Indira Jaising, published an article on 20th April 2025, attacking VP Dhankhar for criticising judicial overreach. The Leaflet suggested that Dhankhar’s strongly worded criticism of the judiciary in a particular context comes at a multi-faceted cost, including political, constitutional and legal, moral, as well as credibility.
“The most pressing question that props up amidst this unidirectional war of words against the Supreme Court is this: can constitutional officeholders, who are expected to act as neutral guardians of the Constitution, publicly question the provisions of the Constitution and actions of the judiciary in such a brazen and pointed manner?” The Leaflet asked in its piece titled “Why the contemptuous tirade by VP Dhankar and BJP MPs against the judiciary is costly for our democracy”.
Firstly, and most importantly, VP Dhankhar did not question the provisions of the Constitution. He only raised concerns over what he deemed as misuse of certain constitutional provisions. Secondly, the Vice President directing a sharp critique against the judiciary, does not imply that he has relinquished his neutrality as someone holding a constitutional office, although the opposition parties and the leftist ecosystem want to insinuate the same.
The Leaflet further made a case for how despite being procedurally shielded from court appearances under Section 133 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by virtue of his office, the Supreme Court should initiate contempt action against the Vice President because how dare he question the Supreme Court’s action as if the latter is the One-True-God who must not be named.
The leftist portal further insinuated that, besides constitutionality, somehow, VP Dhankhar has also breached morality. The propaganda piece argued that as per Article 69, the Vice-President affirms to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law”, however, Dhankhar’s ‘politically charged’ rhetoric goes against the VP’s constitutional duty but also “betrays the dignity and responsibility that comes by virtue of holding public office”, Leaflet claimed.
It, however, failed to decipher that VP Dhankhar’s remarks were not politically charged or at odds with his constitutional duty, rather, his criticism of the judiciary was driven by a genuine concern over a pattern wherein the judiciary seems to be discharging the duties of President, and at times those of the Parliament as well. The Leaflet further delved into the supposed ‘credibility cost’, attempting to project the judiciary as an institution somehow sacrosanct to criticism.
“The judiciary, unlike the legislature and the executive, does not derive its authority from mass mobilisation, political rallies, or control over administrative machinery. It has no army to enforce its decisions, no monetary resources to appease people, and no electorate to appeal to. Its only real sources of strength are public trust and its intrinsic integrity. These are what lend legitimacy to its pronouncements and ensure compliance with its rulings,” The Leaflet argued.
It is amusing that The Leaflet emphasised that judiciary’s source of strength are “public trust and its intrinsic integrity”, however, the leftist propaganda outlet cries hoarse when the Vice President raises concern over the erosion of public trust and ‘intrinsic integrity’ when semi-burnt stash of unaccounted cash is found at a sitting judge’s house, and not a single FIR is registered against him, no concrete action is taken. Apparently, as per the liberal logic, such incidents and subsequent judicial nonchalance in acting against the judge don’t erode public trust in the judiciary, but raising questions over the same does.
The Wire calls Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar a “partisan attack dog”
Another leftist propaganda outlet, The Wire, targeted VP Dhankhar’s criticism of the Supreme Court for using Article 142 and calling it a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”. The Wire being its authentic, dishonest self, twisted facts to suggest that VP Dhankhar criticised Article 142, a constitutional provision, contrary to the reality, that he did not decry the constitutional provision but its alleged misuse by the Supreme Court. The Wire further lamented that VP Dhankhar’s rhetoric aligns with the ‘grievances’ of the ruling party, arguing that he parroted the party (BJP) line. Just like The Leaflet, The Wire also presented Dhankhar’s criticism of the alleged judicial overreach as a ‘violation’ of constitutional morality and ‘betrayal’ of his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”
“The vice-president’s job is to rise above party politics, not descend into the trenches as the executive’s attack dog,” The Wire said.
Notably, Article 142 is a one of its kind provision in the Indian Constitution which confers vast discretionary powers on the Supreme Court. The contours of the Supreme Court’s power under this provision transcend the boundaries of procedural and substantive law. The provision empowers the Court to fill any gaps in the existing statutory provisions and pass any decree or order which it deems “necessary for doing complete justice” in any case pending before it. In addition to that, the provision also says that the Supreme Court has the power to punish for its contempt. It is pertinent to note that even though the Supreme Court enjoys extraordinary powers under Article 142, they are not absolute. OpIndia’s crisp explainer on Article 142, instances when the Supreme Court evoked this provision and how its powers are not absolute can be read here.
After peddling the ‘judiciary under attack’ bogey, The Wire resorted to launching ad hominem attacks on the Vice President, casting aspersions on his ideological commitment, terming his tenure as the governor of West Bengal during which he repeatedly raised concern over post-poll violence in the state and severely criticised the TMC government for Birbhum massacre, ‘egregious’, and his appointment as the country’s Vice President, a reward for his ‘egregious’ conduct.
“Beginning with the Janata Dal in the late 1980s, he moved to the Congress party in 1991 to become an MLA in Rajasthan, only to later join the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2003. Such a trajectory across the political spectrum suggests that his loyalties have been shaped more by personal ambition and political expediency than by steadfast adherence to any core ideology. His opportunistic party-hopping and lack of a consistent ideological anchor render him an untrustworthy character, raising doubts about his motivations and reliability in upholding the principles he now vocally espouses,” The Wire piece asserts as if Dhankhar is only politician in the country who switched parties.
The leftist propaganda outlet’s deliberate attack on Dhankhar’s career trajectory and ideological commitments tries hard to assert that Dhankhar has been ideologically fickle; however, after becoming Vice President, he is acting like a loyal “lapdog” of the ruling BJP. The Wire outrightly accused VP Dhankhar of breaching constitutional propriety and aligning with the Modi government’s imaginary designs to undermine judicial checks on executive power.
The Wire argued that VP Dhankhar’s criticism contributes towards eroding public trust in the judiciary, and also asserted that he should be ‘sacked’ for his “partisan assaults”.
Times of India goes ‘out of line’ to trivialise the significance of the Vice President’s office as VP Dhankhar criticises “judicial overreach”, The Telegraph joins
In its editorial, the Times of India described VP Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks as the “butter icing on a unappetizing case”. The TOI went as far as to downplay the significance of the post of Vice President by calling it a ‘ceremonial constitutional post’.
“Before examining V-P’s comments in more detail, it’s necessary to restate certain things. The V-P post, aside from the job as presiding officer of the Upper House, is a ceremonial one. Therefore, a V-P has no locus standi when it comes to matters of policy, politics and judicial verdicts. That means all news consumers, the readers of this newspaper, for example, must realise no matter what any V-P says on any current affairs issue, his post means his comments must be discounted entirely. Similar constraints apply to those holding the job of president and governor,” the TOI editorial reads.
On one hand, the TOI downplayed the importance of the post of Vice President; on the other, it lamented how dare India’s Vice President make critical observations against the judiciary. In other words, how dare the Vice President question the judiciary?
Meanwhile, The Telegraph also decided to diminish the importance of the VP’s post, calling it a mere ceremonial one. In its editorial headlined, “Quiet, please: Editorial on Jagdeep Dhankhar’s criticism of Supreme Court verdict on state bills”, The Telegraph appeared as an advocate of the Supreme Court and treated VP Dhankhar like an accused blasphemer whose remarks are “patently objectionable”. Doubling down on its “Vice President is a ceremonial or simply insignificant post” assertion, The Telegraph wrote, “The occupants of even benign offices are expected to abide by constitutional conventions: mutual respect among institutions and their office-bearers is one such convention. But Mr Dhankhar seems not to care much about decorum.”
The media outlet further stated that the relations between the Modi government and the judiciary have not been ideal on many occasions, including the Centre’s assertion that there is a dearth of transparency in the judiciary and a need to get rid of the collegium system. The Telegraph also claimed that the Modi government sitting on the names of collegium-recommended judges is “an overreach of the judicial turf by the executive.”
Apparently, the Centre should keep mum when the country is questioning how come no concrete action is being taken against the judge at whose residence such a huge amount of cash was found. The Telegraph wants the Modi government to bury its head in the sand, even as the collegium continues to be a closed-door affair with hardly any proscribed norms pertaining to the eligibility criteria, or even the selection procedure. It seems like more than the antipathy between the executive and the judiciary, there is antipathy between common sense and The Telegraph.
Deccan Herald calls VP Jagdeep Dhankhar a ‘serial offender’, projects him as a blasphemer for having critiqued “the judiciary, its processes and the constitution”
Calling VP Dhankhar’s critical statement against the judiciary as “most improper”, and the one which amounts to a “gross violation” of the responsibilities of the Constitutional office he holds, Deccan Herald argued that the Vice President of India may criticise any judgement by the Supreme Court, however, he is somehow guilty of an unpardonable crime—criticising the judiciary, its processes and the constitution”.
Deccan Herald suggested that Dhankhar criticised the constitution when he proposed an amendment to Article 145 (3), as if the constitution has been immune to amendments since it first came into effect in independent India. “It is not wrong to criticise and comment on the judgments 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 processes and the constitution,” the Deccan Herald editorial reads.
Leftist media criticise the Supreme Court when it aligns against their interests, sanctify the judiciary when its ideological opponents make critical comments
Interestingly, the same left liberal propaganda outlets sanctifying the Supreme Court while offering a hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest criticism of VP Dhankhar have a well-documented track record of criticising its rulings that clash with their ideological leanings. Just weeks back, The Wire did a program critiquing the judiciary’s accountability system, calling it faulty, weak and toothless, while also suggesting measures to change the way judges are appointed. In another program, in February this year, The Wire had a panel discussion over whether the judges are overstepping in various capacities.
From the Supreme Court ruling on Article 370, which upheld the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35a, Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute verdict wherein the apex court gave the disputed land to the Hindu side, to any other ruling which did not align with the leftist agenda, The Wire openly criticised the Supreme Court. Not to forget, back in May 2022, The Wire published an article wherein it argued that the Supreme Court is “embarrassing” itself by keeping the pleas challenging the striking down of Article 370 and 35a pending. The Wire accused the Supreme Court of “judicial insensitivity”.
The Leaflet went as far as to question the integrity of the Supreme Court in upholding the abrogation of Article 370 and 35a, insinuating a judicial complicity in supposed executive ‘overreach’. “However, the rationale used by the Supreme Court to reach the conclusions was stretched and did little to enhance confidence in the judicial process,” The Leaflet article published in December 2023 read.
The entire leftist media ecosystem had accused the Supreme Court of capitulating to ‘majoritarian sentiments’ when it passed the Ayodhya verdict, accusing the top court of failing to uphold secular principles, which, according to them, could have only been saved if the court ordered reconstruction of Babri structure at the Ram Janmabhoomi site.
The leftist media ecosystem’s hypocrisy is amusing, when the judiciary hands verdicts that do not align with their ideological interests, then it becomes bad, flawed and insensitive and to an extent devoid of integrity, however, when it rules against the Centre or rules in favour of a political party they support, as in the Tamil Nadu bills case, these same propaganda outlets elevate judiciary to an unimpeachable pedestal. Apparently, the judiciary is sacrosanct only when it happens to align with the left liberal agenda, but can be subjected to criticism otherwise.
Is it the first time a person holding constitutional office has criticised the judiciary?
The opposition parties and the leftist media cabal are working overtime to vilify Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, mocking his career trajectory, his ideological commitment, even the value of the Vice President’s post, in order to push a narrative that somehow Dhankhar has violated a sacred rule by criticising the judiciary. However, a person holding constitutional office criticising the judiciary is not an unprecedented phenomenon in India’s democratic history.
Back in 2005, then Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee launched a scathing attack on the Supreme Court following its order in the Anil Kumar Jha vs Union of India case, wherein it ordered the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly to conduct a floor test to determine the majority of the Shibu Soren-led state government. It must be recalled that in the 2005 state assembly elections, the BJP was by far the largest party, winning 30 seats out of the 63 seats it contested. The BJP’s pre-poll alliance partner JD(U) contested the other 18 seats and won 6. This took the NDA tally to 36 in the 81-member Assembly. The UPA parties were far behind with JMM winning 17 and Congress winning just 9 for a total of 27 seats, if you would like to include the NCP’s lone MLA as well. Immediately after the results, the BJP received the support of 5 other MLAs: 2 from the AJSU (All Jharkhand Students Union), the lone MLA from the Jharkhand Party and 2 other independents. This took the NDA tally to 41, which would be a clear majority.
The BJP duly staked claim to form the government and also physically presented the 5 supporting MLAs before the Honourable Governor of Jharkhand. However, Governor Syed Sibtey Razi invited JMM supremo Shibu Soren to form the government. Soren was sworn in as CM and Stephen Marandi as Deputy CM. The Soren government had three weeks to prove a majority, meanwhile, the NDA deemed the Governor’s act unconstitutional.
The NDA approached the Supreme Court, which issued an interim order in March 2005, directing the Jharkhand state assembly to advance the floor test on 11th March. The court ordered a video recording of the proceedings and directed the Pro-tem speaker to conduct the floor test. This, however, did not sit well with Somnath Chatterjee, who called the Supreme Court’s intervention “judicial overreach”. Chatterjee had alleged that the Supreme Court’s “interference” in the legislative process, particularly, dictating the time and manner in which the floor test proceedings were to be conducted, encroached on the autonomy of the legislature.
In an interview with Frontline, Chatterjee minced no words in criticising the judiciary as he said, “What I have done is to respond to my conscience as a parliamentarian of long service and to my present responsibilities as the Speaker of the House of People, the custodian of the constitutional rights and powers of legislators. What I have done is to highlight a serious encroachment by the Supreme Court on well-demarcated areas of powers of the legislatures.”
Chatterjee further accused the judiciary of intruding in the legislature’s power sphere by ordering a floor test, that too, under specific circumstances.
“The judiciary’s intrusion has blurred the contours of areas of supremacy of different constitutional institutions. Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution symbolise the supremacy of the legislatures within their own sphere, and these provisions are equally binding on the Speaker as well as the Supreme Court. In short, the delicate constitutional balance between the executive, the judiciary and Parliament, which is extremely crucial for the maintenance and sustenance of parliamentary democracy, has been upset by the court order of March 9,” Chatterjee continued.
Was Chatterjee’s rhetoric any less critical and unapologetic than that of VP Jagdeep Dhankhar? No! In fact, in both cases, it comes across that neither Chatterjee nor Dhankhar essentially commented on the political merit of the respective cases they spoke about, however, they didn’t mince words in criticising what they deemed judicial overreach. Yet, for inherent leftist hypocrites, Chatterjee somehow remains an unparalleled defender of legislative autonomy and champion of constitutional supremacy, but Dhankhar is the BJP’s ‘partisan attack dog’ and his post is insignificant.
Former VP Hamid Ansari accused of betraying Indian intelligence officers is holier than thou, VP Dhankhar is a ‘partisan stooge’ for raising legitimate concern of SC’s conduct
The way the leftist media is slandering VP Jagdeep Dhankhar is in sharp contrast with their treatment of former Vice President Hamid Ansari, who faced grave allegations in the past. Hamid Ansari, who has been accused of lobbying for dreaded gangster Mukhtar Ansari by dialling the police station despite being VP, has been accused of links to questionable people and organisations, including outfits under scrutiny for anti-India activities. He has been accused of prioritising Islamism over Indian interests. Back in 2022, top diplomat Deepak Vohra had alleged that Ansari betrayed India’s intelligence officers in Iran, and when their family members begged him to intervene to get them released, he declined to act. Earlier, a Pakistani journalist, Nusrat Mirza, had claimed that he was invited to a seminar on terrorism by then-Vice President Hamid Ansari and spied on India, although he later claimed that he met former PM Manmohan Singh.
Ansari, even after his tenure as VP ended, continued to partake in events organised by Islamist outfits like IAMC, which is allegedly linked to Pakistan’s ISI and targeted the Modi government. Despite the grave allegations, the left liberal ecosystem never railed against Ansari, forget going absolutely unhinged as they went against VP Dhankhar. In fact, the liberal cabal often argued that Ansari was framed as a victim of right-wing propaganda solely due to his Muslim identity.
Despite serious allegations against him, Hamid Ansari remains holier-than-thou for the left liberal ecosystem, but VP Dhankhar becomes an ‘partisan stooge’ for making a legitimate constitutional argument rooted in democratic principles, not a political or personal vendetta, but about judicial overreach. The ‘liberal’ hypocrisy is palpable. In fact, the leftist media and the opposition parties are like witches of the same coven casting spells of outrage on EVMs and the judiciary, respectively, when it suits their agenda.
Conclusion
The Wire, The Leaflet, and other leftist propaganda outlets relentlessly attacking Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for criticising the judiciary set a dangerous precedent in many respects. Firstly, the kind of criticism Dhankhar is subjected to comes across as an attempt to silence constitutional functionaries from engaging in fair discourse about institutional balance. The idea behind framing Dhankhar’s comments as an attack on the judiciary’s independence and reputation is to close doors for an open debate, essentially placing the apex court beyond reproach. While the leftists accuse Dhankhar of violating constitutional principles, it is they who are undermining the constitutional principles, which suggest that in a healthy democracy, no institution, including the judiciary, is immune to criticism. Also, proposing an amendment is NOT an insult to the judiciary or the Constitution.
Secondly, the leftist media’s ad hominem attacks on VP Dhankhar calling him a ‘partisan attack dog’, ‘stooge’ and ‘lapdog’ or accusing him of breaching constitutional principles, more than their outrage, is actually an attempt deflect focus from why Dhankhar said what he said to who and against whom was the statement made. It is a typical liberal tactic of prioritising sensationalism over substance. The personal attacks on VP Dhankhar and his integrity amount to character assassination, not fact-based counterarguments. While the leftist media displayed concern for the impact of Dhankhar’s critical comments on public trust in the judiciary and disrespect of the constitution, they themselves resorted to trivialising the importance of a constitutional post. The liberal critique sets a dangerous precedent that stifles open debates and criticism, especially in matters involving institutional scrutiny, and normalises launching ad hominem attacks on even the Vice President of India over ideological differences.
News