The ‘intellectual’ lynch brigade is out after the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar over his sensible and well placed observations about the judicial overreach in the country. Knives are out, even questioning the position of the Vice President, some even being so dismissive that this is just a “ceremonial” position. Vice President’s is very much a constitutional position and is duly elected in accordance with the Article 66 of the Constitution of India. He also happens to be the Chairman/Presiding Officer of the upper house of the parliament, the Rajya Sabha. The way he is being criticised and condemned for holding a particular opinion, which many may disagree with, is absolutely in ugly taste. Should we gag our Vice President?
What was wrong in expressing disagreement with the Supreme Court's direction to the President of the Republic that she has to decide all the bills within three months? The President of India is not merely a ceremonial head of the State. India is a Republic and the President is the Head of the Republic. Besides, she is also the Supreme Commander of our armed forces. It is quite a debatable matter whether the Supreme Court of India, whose judges including the Chief Justice of India are appointed by the President only, has the actual jurisdiction of issuing directions to her. Not just the Vice President, any citizen of India has the right to ask such a question.
Dhankhar was quoted by The Tribune saying, “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”. Some sections of the media and a certain section of people may have objections to the Vice President’s observations, but the majority of people are very much in agreement in what he observed.
The accountability of the judiciary has come into public scrutiny from time to time. Dhankhar referred to absence of an FIR in the case of recovery of huge cash from the residence of a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Imagine such cash having been recovered from the residence of a public figure like a politician or a civil servant. There would be instant FIR and inquiry and possible arrest, with little or no chance of bail. But the Supreme Court did not allow registration of an FIR in the matter, apparently because the person from whose house the cash was recovered was a sitting High Court judge.
Whether one agrees with Vice President Dhankhar or not, he has raised some important issues that are already in public domain for a long time. Judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy. Although there has rarely been any occasion when there has been a conflict between the executive and the judiciary, there have been occasions when the judicial directions have come as a surprise like the one issuing directions to the President of the Republic setting a deadline for her to decide about the bills that come for her assent within three months.
Obviously the framers of the Constitution could not have visualised that such situations could emerge in future. Now that the situation has emerged where a constitutional authority, that the Vice President of the country happens to be, has made some observations, which sound logical, these need to be heard. The Supreme Court of India does have overriding powers and absolute discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dispensing justice. Should the doctrine of “checks and balances” not apply to the judicial powers? That is a million dollar question, which the Vice President has not directly raised, but it does suggest so.
The fact is that India does need judicial reforms starting with the way the judges to the High Courts are appointed. The process of appointment needs to be more transparent and broadly representative. Right now a perception is prevailing across the country that getting into the “judicial system” of the country is not an easy thing to do for multiple reasons.
Let us listen to the Vice President. The Government of India and the Supreme Court of India must together give a serious thought to what he has observed and opined. Just being derisively dismissive about it does not sound to be “judicious”.
Follow us
