A Vice Presidential Intervention That Can’t Be Ignored
In a rare and striking public address, Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar on April 17 launched an unfiltered critique of the Indian judiciary, questioning its overreach, internal mechanisms, and lack of transparency. Speaking to Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar touched upon several constitutional and legal concerns, ranging from the functioning of Article 142 and 145(3) to the silence over a controversial “burnt cash” incident involving a sitting judge. The Vice President’s address comes at a time when public trust in institutional accountability is under scrutiny and calls for reform are intensifying.
While constitutional authorities typically tread carefully when discussing the judiciary, Dhankhar’s intervention has opened a contentious debate: Are key judicial powers and processes due for reform in the interest of democratic transparency?
Revisiting Article 145(3): The Call for Structural Reform
One of Dhankhar’s core arguments centered on Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that constitutional questions must be decided by a bench of at least five judges. Dhankhar argued that this article, originally drafted when the Supreme Court had only eight judges, has lost its proportional relevance. “Now five out of 30-plus cannot reflect a constitutional majority in the same way,” he observed, suggesting that the existing structure needs re-evaluation to maintain democratic legitimacy.
He also criticized recent verdicts where judicial benches, smaller than five judges, had issued what he described as “mandamus to the President”, challenging both constitutional propriety and institutional hierarchy. “You cannot direct the President of India… the only right is to interpret the Constitution, not issue directives that bind the highest constitutional office,” Dhankhar asserted.
Article 142: A “Nuclear Missile” in Judicial Hands?
Perhaps the most provocative metaphor in Dhankhar’s speech was his description of Article 142—a provision empowering the Supreme Court to pass orders for “complete justice”—as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”, available to the judiciary “24×7.”
While the Article has historically been used to bridge legal gaps and ensure justice, Dhankhar questioned its sweeping application, hinting at a pattern of overreach. This remark underscores an ongoing debate about judicial activism versus judicial overreach, with critics fearing that unchecked power might sideline legislative and executive functions.
The Burnt Cash Controversy: A Judiciary Under Scrutiny
Dhankhar’s critique wasn’t limited to abstract principles. He zeroed in on a specific incident involving burnt wads of cash reportedly found at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma following a Holi-night fire. “Why has there been no FIR in this matter?” he asked, reflecting public suspicion around the absence of legal proceedings.
The Vice President expressed dissatisfaction with the three-judge in-house committee tasked with probing the matter, highlighting that it was formed without reference to any constitutional provision. “What legal standing does this committee have? Investigation is the domain of the executive, not judiciary,” Dhankhar asserted. His remarks suggested an implicit concern: Is the judiciary effectively policing itself, and is that sufficient in a democratic framework?
On Immunity and Rule of Law: Questioning a Legal Double Standard
In a pointed challenge to existing legal norms, Dhankhar reminded his audience that no one—not even the Vice President—is immune from FIR or legal inquiry, except the President and Governors, as explicitly provided in the Constitution. “So how come a new category, beyond the law, seems to have secured such immunity?” he asked, clearly referencing the judiciary.
He stressed that the rule of law demands equal application. The failure to register an FIR, he noted, is itself a criminal omission under Indian law. By highlighting these contradictions, Dhankhar implied that judicial actors appear to benefit from an unspoken legal sanctuary, raising difficult questions about accountability and transparency within the judiciary.
Transparency vs. Judicial Independence: Striking the Right Balance
Dhankhar also critiqued what he saw as the judiciary’s resistance to scrutiny. Citing a Lokpal bench’s earlier decision asserting its jurisdiction to probe corruption allegations against high court judges—later stayed by the Supreme Court—he said, “Independence is not immunity from inquiry.”
His broader message was clear: true institutional strength lies not in being shielded from accountability but in being open to it. Institutions, he warned, degenerate when cloaked in guarantees that exempt them from oversight.
A Bold Call or a Constitutional Flashpoint?
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks have sent ripples across India’s legal and political landscape. By confronting issues like judicial overreach, procedural opacity, and internal accountability, he has spotlighted uncomfortable truths that many have quietly acknowledged but few in high office have dared to vocalize.
Whether one agrees with his framing or not, the debate he has reignited is crucial. How should the judiciary evolve in a democracy that is both rooted in tradition and confronted by modern complexities? Should reforms be initiated to re-balance the separation of powers? And most importantly, who watches the watchmen?
In raising these questions, Dhankhar may have stirred institutional discomfort—but perhaps also a long-overdue national conversation.
(With inputs from agencies)
