Vice-President Dhankhar Asserts Constitutional Remarks Driven by National Interest Amid Supreme Court Directive Debate
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Tuesday firmly defended his recent comments concerning a Supreme Court ruling, asserting that every statement made by a constitutional authority like himself is rooted in the supreme interest of the nation.
Speaking at an event at Delhi University, Dhankhar criticized those who questioned his stance, emphasizing that constitutional functionaries are not ceremonial or ornamental figures, but integral to the functioning of India’s democracy.
Parliament’s Supremacy and Constitutional Balance
Dhankhar reiterated his view that Parliament holds the highest place in India’s democratic framework. “There is no visualisation in the Constitution of any authority above Parliament. Parliament is supreme…
It is as supreme as every individual in this country,” he stated. His remarks reflect an ongoing concern over the perceived encroachment of the judiciary into legislative and executive domains.
The controversy arose following a recent Supreme Court order, which, for the first time, set a three-month deadline for the President of India to decide on Bills that have been referred by state governors for presidential assent.
Dhankhar criticized this move, claiming it disrupts the constitutional separation of powers and warned against what he termed the judiciary’s attempt to act as a “super Parliament.”
“We never bargained for a democracy where judges legislate, execute, and direct the President. This undermines the essence of democratic functioning,” he said, referring to the ruling.
Democracy Rooted in Citizens and Institutions
Addressing the larger role of institutions and individuals, Dhankhar emphasized that democratic values thrive when citizens are vigilant and participatory. “The soul of democracy resides and pulsates in every citizen.
Democracy will flourish only when citizens are alert and engaged. There is no substitute for citizen contribution,” he remarked.
He likened each citizen to an atom in the democratic structure — small but powerful. “That atomic power is expressed through the electoral process,” he said, highlighting the strength of the people’s mandate.
Reactions from the Judiciary and Lawmakers
Dhankhar’s comments have sparked sharp responses from various quarters, especially from members of the judiciary. In an apparent response to his “super Parliament” remark, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai noted on Monday that “as it is, we are already being accused of overstepping into legislative and executive roles.”
Justice Gavai, who is in line to become the next Chief Justice of India, echoed similar concerns during a separate hearing related to the regulation of online content.
When a petitioner sought government action to curb pornographic material on streaming platforms, Justice Gavai pointed out that such matters fall within the executive’s purview, stating, “It is for the Union government to frame regulations in that regard.”
Meanwhile, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal weighed in on the matter, defending the judiciary. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Sibal said that the Supreme Court’s observations were entirely in line with constitutional values and guided by national interest — a subtle counter to Dhankhar’s assertion.
The Larger Context
This exchange underscores a deepening debate in Indian public life about the scope and limits of constitutional authority.
With tensions simmering between various pillars of democracy — the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary — the discourse surrounding their roles has taken center stage.
Dhankhar, who also serves as the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, has previously voiced concerns about judicial overreach.
His recent remarks reflect a broader narrative being advanced by segments of the political leadership, advocating for a clearer delineation of institutional roles and responsibilities.
As India prepares for significant policy discussions and perhaps legislative changes, these debates may shape not just the immediate political climate but the very understanding of constitutional balance in the country.
