Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar is a known jurist. Unfortunately, his comments about the Supreme Court and its judges do not do justice to his knowledge or the position he holds. They are as shocking in their illogicality as they are inappropriateness in their expression. Dhankhar was angered by the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, which set a time limit for the governors to make a decision on bills passed by state assemblies and for the President to give a decision when they are submitted for scrutiny. He alleged that the court, which makes laws by bypassing Parliament, is creating a super parliament. The judges he said in effect are those who do not apply the law of the land and are not accountable to the law. It didn't end there: while giving the verdict in the case against the Governor of Tamil Nadu, the court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to set a time limit for deciding on the bill. Thus, Dhankhar's anger then turned against the Constitution. That provision, he said, turns out to be a “nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24x7”," he said. In other words, the person holding the position of Vice President not only abused the application of that article in the case considered by the Supreme Court but also that article itself. Thus, the person who is denying the Constitution itself is the one who took office after taking an oath to protect the Constitution. What Dhankhar has done in effect is proclaim that he does not know the method and style of raising constructive dissent and criticism. One can even infer that this also amounts to a statement that he is not fit to hold the constitutional office of Vice President.
The core of Dhankhar's criticism about the court overriding democracy is the verdict given in the case of the Governor indefinitely sitting on the laws passed by the Assembly, the assembly of the people of Tamil Nadu. The court has not only emphasized that the Constitution, not the Governor, the President or any other person, is supreme but also determined its practical application through the verdict. Dhankhar's concept that the President is above the court is unconstitutional. The separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, as established by the Constitution, is the core of democracy. The President is not above all law, as Dhankhar and others believe. If Parliament gains the upper hand, it will effectively become majoritarianism; democracy will cease to exist. Giving excessive powers to the Governor or the President is a denial of the democratic system. If they use excessive power against the Constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary to prevent it. Article 142 is to be used in such cases if necessary. The court's action, which has protected the Constitution and democracy by performing this duty, should in fact be appreciated. A close examination of Dhankhar's words reveals that he is not speaking for the Constitution or democracy but for a damaging system of majoritarianism. The style he adopted as Governor and as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has made this clear. Ambedkar's statement that Governors have no powers, only duties, is more or less applicable to the Vice President.
Dhankhar is the only Vice President in India's parliamentary history to face an impeachment motion. He justifies the Governor's undemocratic use of excessive power in the name of democracy. If he does not understand the court's rejection of the constitutional position that those in power, not the people, should decide the affairs of the country, then the problem is not with the judiciary. The fact that a person who adopts such an unconstitutional approach and applies it to the functioning of the Rajya Sabha has now taken a public stand and declared against the Constitution is no small matter. Moreover, with the courage he instilled, right-wing leaders have also come out with destructive statements against the judiciary. Their aim is not to protect the Constitution and the system of governance. No one, whether the President, Vice President, judges, representatives or ministers, is beyond criticism. The question whether the court, which has set a time limit for the Governor and the President to make a decision, should not also set a limit on the number of cases pending in the courts, is quite relevant. But constructive criticism and destructive denigration are two different things. Unfortunately, that of Dhankar falls into the latter category.