VICE President Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar hit the nail on its head when he said that the judiciary cannot act as a ‘Super Parliament’ and direct even the President of India to set timeline for taking decisions. The reference was clear -- to the direction of the honourable Supreme Court to decide the timeline for making up her mind on the assent to the Bill kept reserved by the Governor. Mr. Dhankhar felt that the Supreme Court was going beyond its brief to issue such directives to the executive -- which must not be done. Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar, thus, has given vent to a critical issue that has been occupying the mind-space of people in domains of politics and power. In other words, he has meant that there can be umpteen reasons for which the executive is required to make certain decisions under several constraints (that cannot be explained). He has put before the nation an issue to be discussed thread-bare so that future decision-making by the higher layers of the power-structure is not affected negatively.

 

The obvious reference is to the issue in Tamil Nadu where the Governor kept decision on certain Bills in abeyance and referred those to the President. In this regard, Tamil Nadu has often been in the news. A more or less similar situation had arisen there when the Governor held back assent to certain Bills and referred those to the President. That was some years ago, and that time, too, sort of a constitutional crisis was foreseen by some quarters. There is a positive flip side to this issue, however. Because the judiciary in India is autonomous does not work under the political establishment, it is expected to keep working in the most non-partisan manner. In this case as regard to some Tamil Nadu Bills, when the President was felt to be taking too long a time to make up her mind on certain Bills, the honourable Supreme Court chose to direct the President not to cause any delays. Possibly, the Supreme Court felt that the delay in granting assent to certain Bills might be taking place because of some unstatable reasons possibly stemming from political considerations. Hence the directive -- which disturbed the Vice President who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of the Parliament.

 

Naturally, Mr. Dhankhar is very averse to the idea of the judiciary acting like a ‘super parliament’ -- which it should not since there is legal ground on which it can stand and hit at the executive -- going over and above the brief and power of Parliament. Even as the Supreme Court is readying for a Change of Guard with the retirement of the current Chief Justice and with assumption of office by his successor, the issue of judicial over-reach occupied the centrestage for whatever reason. There could be criss-cross opinions that many participants may express in public discourse that may follow. Nevertheless, the Vice President has done well to broach the subject once again so that some more detailed deliberation enlightens the public mind. The issue is of what is described as ‘judicial over-reach’ or ‘judicial activism’. In an open system, each over-reach or an activist stance need not be scoffed at. But that also should not be interpreted as unhindered freedom to the judiciary to indulge in overtures that beyond its brief. There still may be people who may describe the Vice President’s comment as over-stepping of his frame, but there may be others who would appreciate his stance. May this discourse, thus, to reach a logical conclusion in time to come -- of course without any political acrimony, without any social disharmony. When a nation accepts the principle of social collectivism, such debates and deliberations are to be expected. For, such a debate is integral to the method and manner of democracy.