Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Raises Concerns Over Supreme Court’s Directive to President on Time-Bound Bill Decisions
Expressing deep concern over a recent Supreme Court judgment, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday criticized what he described as the growing trend of judicial overreach, questioning the court’s authority to impose timelines on the President of India for deciding on pending bills.
Speaking to a group of Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar referred to the court’s recent ruling, which, for the first time, stipulated that once a bill is reserved for the President’s consideration by a state governor, the President should decide on the matter within three months of receiving the reference.
Visibly alarmed by the development, the Vice President asked, “Where are we heading? What is happening in the country?” He added, “We have to be extremely sensitive to such issues.
It is not merely about whether someone files a review petition or not. This is a matter of foundational importance to our democracy. Our constitutional framework never envisioned a day when the President of India would be bound by judicial directions to act within a court-mandated deadline.”
Dhankhar went on to critique the broader implications of the judgment, warning against a scenario where the separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary begins to blur.
“We are witnessing a situation where judges are not only interpreting the law, which is their primary constitutional role, but increasingly assuming legislative and executive functions.
Acting as a super Parliament, they issue directives with no mechanism for accountability, since the law of the land does not hold them accountable in the same way as elected representatives,” Dhankhar remarked.
The Vice President emphasized that his concerns stemmed from a place of deep constitutional commitment and admitted that, in his lifetime, he had never imagined witnessing such a situation.
Underscoring the significance of the office of the President, Dhankhar reminded the audience that the President of India occupies the highest constitutional position in the republic, and swears an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution.
In contrast, he noted, others — including the Vice President, ministers, parliamentarians, and even judges — pledge only to abide by the Constitution.
“It is unprecedented, and in my view, constitutionally improper, for any judicial body to issue directives to the President of India. On what constitutional basis can this happen?” Dhankhar questioned.
He concluded his remarks by underlining the scope of judicial authority, clarifying that under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s role is limited to interpreting the Constitution, and even that must be done by a constitutional bench of at least five judges or more.
The Vice President’s comments mark a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the separation of powers in India’s democratic system, raising questions about the evolving relationship between the judiciary and the other pillars of government.
