Vice-President’s Judiciary Remarks: Issues and Counterpoints
Why in the news
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s speech revived debate on the separation of powers, judicial accountability and the limits of constitutional authority.
Points raised
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Misconduct inquiries | No clear legal framework for internal probes, citing cash found at a High Court judge’s home; wants a transparent mechanism framed by Parliament |
| Timelines for President and Governors | Questioned whether courts may issue writs to constitutional heads over State Assembly Bills |
| Accountability | Judiciary is not answerable to voters; revisit Article 145(3) given 34 judges now versus 8 in 1950 |
| Article 142 | Wide use of the “complete justice” power may weaken representative democracy |
In support
- Opaque probes need a codified process to restore trust.
- The collegium is seen as insular; a revamped NJAC with a CJI veto could balance transparency and independence.
Against
- The timelines ruling rests on precedent and a 2016 Home Ministry guideline.
- Article 142 aided justice: Bhopal Gas compensation, Vishakha Guidelines, coal block cancellation, women’s permanent commission in armed forces, demolition accountability orders.
- The five-judge rule ensures careful adjudication; changing it may not cut pendency.
Constitutional balance
- India mixes parliamentary sovereignty with judicial supremacy.
- Judicial review is a basic feature.
Exam angle
- Articles 142 and 145(3); collegium versus NJAC.