‘Told We Intrude’: Supreme Court Fires Back in Judiciary vs Executive Faceoff | Here's What Transpired

New Delhi: In a pointed observation that reignites the judiciary vs executive tug-of-war, the Supreme Court on Monday alluded to recent political criticism while hearing a plea seeking President’s Rule in West Bengal over escalating violence in the state.

The top court, while responding to advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain’s plea regarding violent incidents in Murshidabad and other regions, appeared to reference controversial remarks made by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and several BJP leaders criticising the court’s judgment on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s powers.

“As it is, we are alleged to be intruding on Parliamentary and Executive functions,” said Justice BR Gavai, who is in line to become the next Chief Justice of India. His remark came in response to the petitioner’s request for a judicial directive to impose President’s Rule in West Bengal.

“You want us to issue mandamus?” Gavai asked, indicating the court’s reluctance to wade into executive territory—especially amid an already charged political atmosphere where the judiciary is being accused of overreach.

Jain, appearing for the petitioner, had urged the court to consider the recent law and order breakdown in Bengal, pointing to fresh violence that allegedly led to multiple injuries and fatalities. “I want to bring to light the latest instances of violence that have occurred in the state,” he said.

Judiciary vs Executive: How it All Started 

This comes days after Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar launched one of his strongest attacks yet on the judiciary, accusing it of systematically overstepping its mandate and morphing into an unaccountable “super-parliament.”

Addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns in New Delhi, Dhankhar — himself a former Supreme Court advocate — sharply criticised the top court’s March ruling in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, where it declared Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to ten state bills as “arbitrary” and “illegal.”

In a charged speech, Dhankhar asked, “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?”

He took issue with the court’s move to impose a three-month timeline for presidential assent under Article 201, saying it amounted to judges entering the domain of legislation and executive governance. “So we now have judges who will legislate, perform executive functions, act as super-parliament, and have absolutely no accountability,” he said.

The Vice-President also questioned the judiciary’s use of Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do "complete justice." “Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7,” Dhankhar said, adding that such sweeping powers were never intended in a parliamentary democracy.

Following Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s fiery critique of judicial overreach, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has joined the chorus of dissent, questioning the Supreme Court’s recent observations on the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.   

  “...Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country. The Supreme Court is going beyond its limits. If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assembly should be shut...” Nishikant Dubey had said.