‘Judiciary Acting as Super-Parliament’, Says Dhankhar; Terms Article 142 a ‘Nuclear Missile’ Against Democracy

New Delhi: Days after a Supreme Court ruling that set a timeline for the President and Governors to act on pending legislation, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar launched a scathing attack on the judiciary, accusing it of overstepping its mandate and functioning as an unaccountable "super-parliament".

In a fiery address to the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar said, “The President of India is a very elevated constitutional position, one that takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Now, there is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country?”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s March ruling in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, which declared Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent to ten bills as “arbitrary” and “illegal”, — Dhankhar questioned the judiciary's reach. The court had not only laid down a three-month timeline for assent after a bill is passed a second time, but also ruled that Presidential functions are subject to judicial review under Article 201.

“President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, it becomes law — so we now have judges who will legislate, perform executive functions, act as super-parliament, and have absolutely no accountability,” said the Vice-President, a former Supreme Court lawyer.

He also targeted the sweeping powers granted to the judiciary under Article 142 of the Constitution. “Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7,” he remarked, questioning whether such powers were ever intended in a democracy.

On Cash Haul at Delhi Judge’s Residence

Dhankhar also raised concerns about the judiciary’s response to a reported massive cash seizure from the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. The recovery allegedly took place on the night of March 14-15, but only became public through a news report on March 21.

“An event of such magnitude went unreported for a week. Is the delay explainable? Does it not raise serious questions about the rule of law? Had this happened in an ordinary household, the response would’ve been swift — perhaps electronic rocket speed. But now, it’s not even a cattle cart,” he said.

Noting that no FIR has been filed against the judge yet, Dhankhar pointed out, “Under Indian law, an FIR can be filed against any Constitutional functionary — even me — without special permission. But when it comes to judges, FIRs require clearance from within the judiciary. This is not granted by the Constitution.”

Questions Over Judicial Probe Committee

Criticising the formation of a three-judge committee to probe the alleged cash haul, Dhankhar said such a body has no legal sanction from Parliament and holds no real power.

“The committee can only make a recommendation — but to whom? And for what purpose? The final action against a judge can only come through a Parliamentary process.”

“A month has passed. Investigation requires speed and preservation of evidence. Are we not diluting the rule of law?” he asked.

Calling for transparency and accountability, the Vice-President added, “Even if this is a can of worms, or skeletons in a cupboard — it is time to blow the lid. Let the cleansing begin.”

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The backdrop of Dhankhar’s remarks is a March verdict from the Supreme Court that effectively curtailed gubernatorial and Presidential inaction on Bills.

The court ruled that once a Bill is passed for the second time by a legislature, the Governor must act within a “reasonable time”, suggested to be three months. It also affirmed the judiciary’s role in reviewing decisions under Article 201 and advised the President to refer constitutional questions in Bills to the Supreme Court.

Legal experts have praised the verdict as a step toward ensuring legislative supremacy and accountability from constitutional heads. However, Dhankhar’s comments show a growing tension between the Executive and the Judiciary, with his statements marking one of the sharpest public criticisms of the judiciary by a constitutional authority in recent years.