NEW DELHI: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday issued a pointy rebuke to the judiciary for overstepping its mandate, particularly questioning current strikes to direct the President on legislative issues. He referred to as Article 142 a “nuclear missile” within the judiciary’s arsenal which is “available to the judiciary 24 x 7.”
The Vice President additionally raised issues over the dealing with of the case involving Justice Yashwant Varma, following stories of semi-burnt sacks of money found on the choose’s official residence in Delhi.
“You cannot direct the President. The only authority under the Constitution to interpret the law lies with a bench of five or more judges under Article 145(3),” he mentioned.
Additionally learn: VP takes on SC over deadline for President to determine on Payments
“President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, it becomes law. So 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,” the VP added.
Expressing concern over the perceived erosion of the separation of powers, he added: “The legislature, judiciary, and executive must operate within their domains. Any encroachment by one risks destabilising the entire system.”
“Time has come for our three institutions, Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive, to blossom. And they blossom best when they operate in their own area. Any incursion by one in the domain of the other poses a challenge, which is not good. It can upset the balance,” Dhankhar mentioned.
Talking on the valedictory occasion of the sixth Rajya Sabha Internship Programme, Dhankhar questioned the absence of a proper investigation within the Justice Verma case, saying that the rule of legislation should prevail no matter a person’s place.
“Let me take the incidents that are most recent. They are dominating our minds. An event happened on the night of the 14th and 15th of March in New Delhi, at the residence of a judge. For seven days, no one knew about it. We have to ask questions to ourselves: Is the delay explainable? Condonable? Does it not raise certain fundamental questions? In any ordinary situation–and ordinary situations define rule of law–things would have been different. It was only on 21st March, disclosed by a newspaper, that people of the country were shocked as never before. They were in some kind of limbo, deeply concerned and worried at this explosive, alarming expose,” he mentioned.
Dhankhar criticised the dearth of a First Data Report (FIR) within the case, noting that whereas anybody in India could be booked with out prior approval, particular permission is required to provoke proceedings towards judges.
He identified that this isn’t a constitutional safeguard, stating that immunity beneath the Structure is reserved just for the President and Governors.
“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone–any constitutional functionary, including the one before you. One has only to activate the rule of law. No permission is required. But if it is judges–FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in judiciary. But that is not given in the Constitution. The Constitution of India has accorded immunity from prosecution only to the Hon’ble President and the Hon’ble Governors. So how come a category beyond law has secured this immunity? Because the ill-effects of this are being felt in the mind of one and all. Every Indian, young and old, is deeply concerned. If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now, it is not even a cattle cart,” the VP mentioned.
