In a bold and highly debated statement, Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar recently voiced sharp criticism of the Supreme Court’s expanding use of Article 142 of the Constitution. Referring to it as a “nuclear missile against democratic values,” Dhankhar raised concerns over what he described as judicial overreach and warned of its potential to disturb the balance of power among India’s constitutional institutions.
Speaking to a group of interns from the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar made his position clear: “Article 142 has become a weapon – a missile – that can override the Parliament and executive authority. That is not democracy.”
His comments come amid ongoing debates about the judiciary’s power to issue binding directives in matters traditionally within the purview of the legislature or executive, especially following the Supreme Court’s recent judgment directing governors to act on state bills within a time frame.
Understanding Article 142
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice” in any cause or matter before it. Though meant as a corrective provision to ensure fair outcomes, critics argue that its undefined scope allows for broad interpretations, often leading to the court issuing orders that stretch into legislative or administrative domains.
Supporters, on the other hand, call it a vital tool in addressing legal gaps and delivering swift justice, especially in complex matters where legislative clarity is lacking or delayed.
What Prompted Dhankhar’s Statement?
Vice President Dhankhar’s strong reaction followed a recent Supreme Court ruling that directed the President of India to act within three months on bills passed by state legislatures and pending with governors. The judgment was in response to a petition highlighting long delays in governors’ actions on state bills — a situation most recently visible in Tamil Nadu, where the Governor allegedly withheld or delayed assent on multiple bills.
Dhankhar questioned the judiciary’s authority to “direct the President” — the constitutional head of state — to follow such a timeline. He expressed concerns that such judgments set dangerous precedents that could undermine constitutional roles and processes.
“We never bargained for democracy to be like this. We must maintain separation of powers. Parliament is supreme in lawmaking, and the judiciary cannot act like a super-legislature,” said Dhankhar.
Reactions From Legal Experts and Politicians
The Vice President’s remarks have sparked wide political and legal debate.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a senior advocate and Congress MP, publicly countered Dhankhar’s interpretation. He emphasized that Article 142 is not a recent innovation and has been part of the legal landscape for decades.
“It is not born yesterday. It has evolved through jurisprudence and has often rescued democracy when Parliament failed,” Singhvi said in a social media post.
Others in the opposition called Dhankhar’s remarks politically motivated, accusing him of acting more as a representative of the ruling government rather than a constitutional authority expected to maintain neutrality.
The Balance of Power Debate
At the heart of this clash is the separation of powers — the principle that divides the functions of government among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. While the judiciary is expected to interpret laws, it is increasingly being accused of entering spaces traditionally controlled by lawmakers and administrators.
This is not the first time Dhankhar has spoken against judicial activism. Since taking office in 2022, he has repeatedly emphasized the need for “constitutional boundaries” to be respected.
“Judges are not elected. They cannot override the mandate of the people expressed through Parliament,” he said in an earlier public address in 2023.
The Judiciary’s Perspective
In defense of Article 142, several former judges and legal scholars have maintained that the article acts as a corrective mechanism in the Indian legal system. They argue it is necessary in a complex and often delayed democratic setup where many issues fall through bureaucratic or legislative cracks.
For example, Article 142 has been used in several landmark rulings, including:
- The Ayodhya land dispute case, where the Supreme Court used its powers to allocate land and end a decades-long religious dispute.
- Environmental and human rights cases, where the court has often stepped in to enforce policy changes.
- Criminal justice matters, such as ordering protection for whistleblowers or abuse victims.
However, even within judicial circles, there is a growing conversation about self-restraint and the need for checks on the court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142.
What Happens Next?
While Dhankhar’s statement holds no legislative weight, it adds pressure to an ongoing national conversation about the judiciary’s expanding role. His criticism could influence parliamentary discussions or potentially shape future judicial accountability frameworks, especially as the Law Commission is reportedly reviewing the scope and use of judicial discretion under Article 142.
The Supreme Court has not responded directly to Dhankhar’s comments. However, constitutional experts expect greater scrutiny and debate in both houses of Parliament and possibly a re-examination of the limits of Article 142.
Public Reaction
Public opinion remains divided. Some believe Dhankhar’s warning is timely and necessary to preserve democratic institutions, while others see it as a politically charged move to undermine judicial independence, especially ahead of national elections.
A law student attending the event at Rajya Sabha said, “The Vice President spoke from a constitutionalist perspective, but it’s also important to ensure the judiciary remains empowered to protect people’s rights.”
On social media, the phrase “Article 142 missile” trended on X (formerly Twitter), with memes and political commentary flooding timelines. The issue clearly resonates with a wide section of the population.
Conclusion
The Vice President’s remarks have reignited the national debate over the separation of powers and the judiciary’s expanding reach. Whether Article 142 remains a shield for justice or a sword against democracy, as Dhankhar claims, remains to be decided — not just in courts, but also in public and parliamentary discourse.
The path forward lies in balanced reforms, judicial accountability, and above all, respect for the constitutional ethos that defines India’s democratic system.
