In a hard-hitting address that is bound to stir intense debate, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on April 17, delivered a stinging critique of India’s judiciary, accusing it of functioning as a “super Parliament” with “no accountability.” Speaking to the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice-President’s Enclave, Dhankhar expressed deep concern over recent judicial developments, raising questions about transparency, accountability, and the balance of power among constitutional institutions.
The Vice President stated, “It is now over a month. Even if it is a can of worms. Even if there are skeletons in the cupboard, time to blow up the can. Time for its lid to go out. And time for the cupboard to collapse. Let the worms and skeletons be in the public domain so that cleansing takes place.” These remarks were in reference to an incident that occurred on the night of March 14-15 at a judge’s residence in New Delhi—an event that, according to Dhankhar, was concealed from the public for seven days before being reported by the media on March 21.
Dhankhar questioned the delay and secrecy, asking whether it was “explainable or condonable,” and called the public’s reaction “a limbo of concern and alarm.” He highlighted that, despite indications of culpability from the Supreme Court itself, no First Information Report (FIR) has been registered yet. “Every cognizable offence must be reported to the police. Failure to report it is a crime,” he said, questioning why judges appear to enjoy immunity not enshrined in the Constitution.
“There is a committee of three judges investigating the matter,” Dhankhar said, “but investigation is the domain of the executive. The committee has no sanction under the Constitution or any law passed by Parliament. It can only make a recommendation. To whom? For what? The mechanism for action against judges lies with Parliament alone.” He underscored that legal processes are being bypassed and that “the report of such a committee lacks inherent legal standing.”
Warning against institutional overreach, the Vice President said, “Time has come when our three institutions—legislature, judiciary, and executive—must blossom in their own domains. Any incursion poses a challenge which is not good.” He reiterated that the executive is accountable to Parliament and the people, whereas judicial governance lacks such direct accountability.
Citing a Lokpal ruling from January 2025 that allowed corruption complaints against High Court judges to be investigated, Dhankhar criticised its subsequent stay on the grounds of “judicial independence.” He questioned the misuse of judicial independence as a shield against scrutiny, stating, “This is not a cover against enquiry. Institutions thrive with transparency.”
Dhankhar also revisited the Second Judges Case of 1993, which interpreted “consultation” with the Chief Justice during judicial appointments as “concurrence.” He noted that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had warned against giving such veto power to the Chief Justice, calling the court’s reinterpretation a “dangerous proposition.” He pointed out that the Constitution uses “consultation” and “concurrence” differently, including within the same article, and said this nuance was ignored.
On the doctrine of Basic Structure, Dhankhar critiqued a recent book launched by a former Supreme Court judge who glorified the concept. He contrasted this with the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency of 1975 despite the doctrine being in place. “This so-called bulwark against state excesses was trampled by the very court that had invented it,” he said, questioning the selective memory and lack of critical engagement at the event.
Perhaps most provocatively, Dhankhar raised alarm over what he called judicial overreach into the powers of the President of India. Referring to a recent judgment that directed the President to act within a specified timeline, he asked, “Where are we heading? Judges now legislate, perform executive functions, and direct the President. They act as super Parliament and have no accountability.”
He questioned why judges are not mandated to disclose assets like electoral candidates and legislators, pointing out that the law of the land appears to apply selectively. “Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces,” he declared, expressing deep concern over its expansive interpretation by the judiciary.
Dhankhar called for an urgent reassessment of the balance of power, respect for constitutional boundaries, and restoration of public faith in the institutions that underpin Indian democracy.
Comments