Vice President Dhankhar Raises Concerns Over Judiciary’s Expanding Powers, Calls for Adherence to Constitutional Boundaries

New Delhi, April 17 – Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday issued pointed remarks regarding the expanding purview of judicial authority, asserting that no democratic framework can permit a situation where courts issue directives to the President of India.

Speaking to the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, Mr. Dhankhar’s comments came in the backdrop of a recent Supreme Court judgment which set a time-bound framework for the President and Governors to assent to state legislation—an unprecedented move that has stirred constitutional debate.

In a candid address, the Vice President also referred to the controversy surrounding the significant cash recovery from the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma during a fire rescue operation in mid-March. Expressing dismay over the judiciary’s response, he said the delay in public disclosure raised troubling questions about transparency and accountability.

“An incident of grave concern occurred on the night of March 14–15. Yet, it remained under wraps for nearly a week. It was only on March 21, following media reports, that the public became aware. The delay is neither easily explained nor justified,” he said. “Such events shake public trust—especially when involving institutions held in the highest esteem.”

Referring to subsequent information attributed to the Supreme Court indicating possible culpability, Mr. Dhankhar noted that while the incident suggested the need for an investigation, no First Information Report (FIR) has yet been filed against the judge involved.

He pointed out a perceived disparity in legal treatment: “In our country, an FIR can be filed against any constitutional functionary, including myself, without any special clearance. Yet, when it involves a judge, prior approval from within the judiciary is required—despite this not being enshrined in the Constitution,” he said.

Drawing attention to constitutional safeguards, the Vice President reminded that immunity from prosecution is explicitly granted only to the President and the Governors under the Constitution. “Where, then, has this protective barrier for the judiciary originated? The public perception is being adversely affected. If such a recovery had occurred at the home of a common citizen, investigations would have moved at the speed of light. Instead, we see inertia.”

Mr. Dhankhar further questioned the formation of a judicial committee to probe the incident, emphasizing that such a body lacks statutory authority. “What is the legal foundation of this committee? Who sanctioned it? The only actionable mechanism against a judge lies with the Parliament under the impeachment provisions. Meanwhile, time continues to elapse and vital evidence may be lost. The investigation process must be swift, transparent, and above all, within the law.”

On the broader issue of judicial overreach, the Vice President strongly objected to the Supreme Court’s directive to the President regarding legislative assent, cautioning against the judiciary stepping into legislative and executive domains.

“Are we now moving toward a system where judges legislate, execute, and adjudicate without any checks or accountability? This is not the vision our Constitution laid out. Article 142, originally intended as a tool for delivering complete justice, is today wielded with unchecked breadth—what I would term a 'nuclear missile' against democratic processes.”

In conclusion, Mr. Dhankhar underscored the need for all institutions to function within their constitutionally defined limits. “The principle of separation of powers is fundamental. Our democracy cannot afford to compromise on it—not even inadvertently,” he said.