In a sharp constitutional rebuttal between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has vociferously criticised Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks, accusing the acts of the Apex Judiciary as a “Super Parliament.” The Vice President’s comments came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision that directed the President to act within a stipulated timeframe on bills forwarded by a State Governor — a judgment that has since sparked a debate on separation of powers and constitutional propriety.
On April 8, 2025, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered a verdict asserting that the President must decide within three months on any bill referred by a Governor under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The ruling aimed to counter the increasing practice of Governors withholding assent to bills passed by elected state legislatures — a phenomenon observed, most notably, in Tamil Nadu where Governor R.N. Ravi delayed multiple bills.
VP Dhankhar’s Rebuke: “Judiciary Acting as Super Parliament”
Reacting to the verdict at the valedictory function of the 6th Rajya Sabha Internship Programme, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar warned against what he described as judicial overreach and lamented that the judiciary was intruding into executive and legislative functions. He stated:
“There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? … We never bargained for democracy for this day.”
Dhankhar, while claiming to uphold the sanctity of separation of powers, expressed concerns about the increasing tendency of courts to issue directives that, in his view, blur the lines of constitutional roles:
“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.”
Sibal’s Response: “This Is an Inversion of Legislative Supremacy”
Kapil Sibal, currently serving as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, did not mince words in responding to the Vice President’s assertions. He invoked the constitutional framework to underline that both the President and Governors are bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers, as stipulated under Article 74(1) and Article 163(1), respectively.
Calling out the Vice President’s interpretation, Sibal argued that the true democratic threat lies not in judicial oversight but in executive inaction:
“This is in fact an intrusion on the supremacy of the legislature — yeh to ulti baat hai (the issue is flipped). If Parliament passes a bill, can the President indefinitely delay its implementation?”
Sibal further questioned the rhetorical posturing by the Vice President:
“This should be known to Dhankhar ji — he asks how the powers of the President can be curtailed, but who is curtailing the powers?”
Dhankhar’s Alarm Over Article 142: “A Nuclear Missile Against Democracy”
The Vice President also raised concerns about the Supreme Court’s invocation of Article 142, which empowers the Court to pass orders necessary to do “complete justice.” Dhankhar described this constitutional provision as:
“A nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24×7.”
He suggested that the unchecked and frequent use of Article 142 risked undermining the representative nature of India’s democracy.
Accountability and the Separation of Powers Debate
While Dhankhar acknowledged that Parliament “cannot script a judgment,” he underscored that the executive is accountable to the people, unlike the judiciary. He warned:
“If this executive governance is by judiciary, how do you ask questions? Whom do you hold accountable in an election?”
However, Sibal countered this logic by reaffirming that the judiciary’s role is not to govern but to ensure that governance conforms to constitutional norms. Referring to Governors sitting indefinitely on legislation, Sibal asked:
“If a minister goes to the Governor with a bill and he is ignored for two years, will the Governor be held accountable to anyone?”
A Constitutional Crossroads?
At the heart of this debate is a larger question: Can the judiciary step in when constitutional functionaries delay their duties? The Supreme Court’s judgment arguably attempts to restore the sanctity of the legislature by preventing constitutional bottlenecks. In contrast, Dhankhar’s concern is grounded in preserving the institutional boundaries.
The Court’s verdict does not curtail the president’s powers per se but rather enforces timelines for decisions—a judicial response to the executive’s failure to act. As the constitutional debate unfolds, it may well define the contours of India’s federal framework and the durability of its checks and balances.
About Author
Tanishq, a law student at the Department of Legal Studies and Research, Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, is a budding legal writer with a sharp eye for evolving legal landscapes. Passionate about Intellectual Property Rights, Constitutional Law, and Women and Child Safety Laws, Tanishq actively explores contemporary legal nuances through writing and research.
REFERENCE:
https://chatgpt.com/c/68046d31-94f0-800e-b57e-c5b076edbaf5