"Can't direct the President", Jagdeep Dhankar targets Supreme Court

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar has voiced strong criticism of the judiciary, specifically addressing the recent Supreme Court judgment regarding presidential and gubernatorial bill clearances. He asserted that it is unacceptable for courts to issue directives to the President of India. Dhankhar also expressed concern over the use of Article 142 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court special powers, describing it as a "nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7."

During an address to the 6th batch of Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar raised questions regarding the substantial cash recovery from the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. He emphasized the delay in public disclosure of the incident, noting that it remained unknown for seven days. Dhankhar questioned the explainability and condonability of this delay, stating that it raises fundamental concerns about the rule of law.  

Dhankhar highlighted the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of "culpability" in the judge's cash recovery case, yet pointed out the absence of a First Information Report (FIR). He argued that while an FIR can typically be registered against any citizen, including constitutional functionaries, the process differs for judges, requiring approval from within the judiciary. Dhankhar contended that the Constitution grants immunity from prosecution only to the President and Governors, questioning how a category beyond law has seemingly acquired similar protection.  

The Vice-President expressed his belief that this perceived immunity is causing widespread concern among Indians, both young and old. He contrasted the delayed progress in the judge's case with the swift action that would likely occur if a similar event transpired at an ordinary citizen's residence. Dhankhar, a former Senior Advocate, implied that the principles of equal application of the law appear to be challenged in this situation.

Dhankhar's remarks underscore a growing tension between the executive and judicial branches. His strong language regarding Article 142 and the perceived differential treatment in the judge's case signals a significant point of contention. The Vice-President's intervention in this matter is likely to fuel further debate about the separation of powers and the accountability of constitutional functionaries in India.

The ongoing developments surrounding the cash recovery from the Delhi High Court judge's residence and the Vice-President's outspoken criticism are expected to keep the relationship between the government and the judiciary under close public scrutiny. The nation awaits further developments in the investigation and any potential legal ramifications arising from the situation.