1. Context and Background
- The Supreme Court of India recently set a deadline for Governors to respond to bills passed by state legislatures, emphasizing the need for timely assent or action.
- This move came after prolonged delays by Governors in various states, especially non-BJP-ruled ones, raising concerns over federal fairness and constitutional responsibility.
- Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the Supreme Court’s intervention, calling it an overreach into legislative and executive domains.
2. The VP’s Comments
- Dhankhar labeled the Supreme Court’s timelines as judicial interference in the functioning of constitutional authorities like the Governor.
- He argued that courts should not encroach upon domains reserved for the executive or legislature.
- Claimed such judgments undermine the doctrine of separation of powers.
3. Why the Comments Are Seen as a “Diatribe”
- The Vice President’s remarks are unusually harsh and dismissive of the judiciary’s constitutional mandate to interpret and uphold the Constitution.
- The use of combative language reflects a confrontational stance rather than a reasoned critique.
- It ignores the broader issue of constitutional delay and breakdown in the functioning of state machinery due to inaction by Governors.
4. Judiciary’s Role Justified
- The judiciary steps in when constitutional processes are stalled or abused—this is part of its core function.
- The Constitution does not give Governors indefinite time to act on bills; such inaction disrupts legislative functioning.
- The Supreme Court’s intervention aims to ensure accountability and uphold democratic processes.
5. Separation of Powers Misinterpreted
- The doctrine of separation of powers does not imply absolute silos—it allows for checks and balances.
- Courts are empowered to ensure that constitutional authorities perform their duties within legal and moral limits.
- The Vice President’s argument reflects a rigid and incorrect understanding of this doctrine.
6. Undermining Constitutional Morality
- By defending Governors’ delays, the Vice President appears to condone partisan use of constitutional offices.
- This stance risks weakening the spirit of cooperative federalism and constitutional morality.
- It fuels a perception that constitutional norms are secondary to political convenience.
7. Political Undertones
- The critique fits a broader pattern of executive pushback against judicial scrutiny.
- It reflects discomfort within ruling circles over increasing judicial activism, particularly when it counters executive discretion.
- Raises concerns about attempts to intimidate or delegitimize the judiciary.
8. Public Trust at Stake
- Open and harsh criticism of the judiciary by high constitutional authorities can erode public confidence in institutions.
- Mutual respect among organs of the state is essential for healthy democracy.
- Such outbursts should be replaced with constructive dialogue and constitutional adherence.
9. Conclusion
- The Vice President’s comments were unnecessary and unconstructive in the current climate of strained federal relations.
- The Supreme Court’s decision was a measured and much-needed response to institutional paralysis.
- Protecting the Constitution requires restraint, not rhetoric—from all branches of the government.
