The Supreme Court’s landmark verdict of April 8, which laid down time-bound guidelines for Governors and even the President to act on Bills passed by state legislatures, has stirred an unprecedented constitutional debate. What should have been a moment for introspection about strengthening democratic processes has instead become the latest flashpoint between two vital arms of the state — the judiciary and the political executive.
The apex court’s ruling, which held that indefinite delays by Governors in assenting to Bills was unconstitutional, stemmed from a writ petition by the Tamil Nadu government. In its judgment, the Court rightly observed that such inaction violates the principles of parliamentary democracy and sets a dangerous precedent. Importantly, it set timelines for Governors and the President to act under Articles 200 and 201, thereby attempting to close a loophole that had long allowed constitutional paralysis by omission.
The judgment was careful not to amend the Constitution or impose automatic assent, but to clarify that constitutional silence should not be interpreted as licence for procrastination. Judicial activism, perhaps — but the Court asserted it was compelled by necessity, not ambition. Yet, the sharp reaction from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar — who termed the judgment a “nuclear missile” against democratic forces — marks a troubling turn in this debate.
It is one thing for political leaders and legal experts to question a judicial pronouncement. In fact, dissent and debate are intrinsic to a vibrant democracy. But when constitutional functionaries like the Vice President, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, take to public forums to lambast the judiciary in unfiltered terms, it does not bode well for democratic harmony.
Vice President Dhankhar’s remarks go beyond the usual bounds of criticism. Referring to judges as “super Parliament” and accusing them of appropriating executive functions undermines not just the judgment in question but also the very principle of separation of powers. Such comments blur the institutional decorum expected from someone who is meant to rise above political fray and embody constitutional impartiality.
Speakers of legislatures and Vice Presidents, by their very position, are expected to act as impartial custodians of the Constitution. While they may have prior political affiliations, once elevated to these roles, their actions and utterances are supposed to reflect statesmanship, not partisanship. The public spectacle of constitutional authorities sparring with each other diminishes institutional credibility and erodes the citizen’s faith in governance.
The issues raised by critics of the judgment — whether the Court overstepped its bounds, whether the President’s immunity under Article 361 has been compromised, or whether the use of Article 142 was appropriate — are all valid concerns in a constitutional democracy. But these should be raised through proper legal avenues, such as a judicial review or a review petition, rather than through sweeping public pronouncements.
Unfortunately, the current discourse has veered into the terrain of confrontation rather than consultation. By criticising the judgment so sharply and so publicly, the Vice President has added fuel to a fire that required constitutional sobriety. It is entirely possible to disagree with the Supreme Court while still maintaining institutional decorum. Several legal experts have indeed done so — offering measured critiques of the potential implications of this judgment, including concerns about judicial overreach and lack of representation from the Executive’s side during hearings.
That said, the spirit of the Court’s order cannot be ignored. Delays in granting assent to Bills passed by elected legislatures, without communication or justification, clearly undermine the legislative process. The Governor’s office is not meant to function as an alternate political power centre. The Constitution envisages Governors as constitutional figureheads who act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not as veto-holding overseers.
If anything, this judgment was a response to a vacuum — a situation where democratic processes were being held hostage by institutional inertia. The Court stepped in to assert that governance cannot be stalled by silence, and that accountability must extend to every branch of the state. Whether its method was perfect is open to debate, but its motivation seems aligned with constitutional principles.
It is ironic that a judgment aimed at resolving a constitutional impasse has now resulted in another. The need of the hour is for mature dialogue between institutions, not a war of words. Respectful disagreement is the hallmark of a functioning democracy; personal attacks are not.
India’s constitutional democracy has survived and thrived because of the mutual respect its institutions afford each other. That delicate balance must not be disturbed in the heat of the moment. Constitutional functionaries, more than anyone else, must lead by example — by choosing civility over confrontation, dialogue over denunciation.