The position of the judiciary at the summit of the pyramid

• Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar expressed concerns about the judiciary’s independence, powers of judicial review, and the judgment prescribing timelines to the President and Governor for their actions.

• He questioned the transparency of the inquiry into the recovery of cash at a Delhi High Court Judge’s residence and the legality of the procedure.

• He criticized the Supreme Court’s recent judgment prescribing timelines for the President and Governors to take action on State legislations.

• Dhankhar criticized the lack of accountability of the judiciary towards the public, citing the provisions of Article 145(3), which require a minimum of five judges for adjudicating on constitutional validity, and suggested it may need to be revisited.

• He criticized the use of the top court’s extraordinary power under Article 142, which undermines representative democracy.

• Critics argue that the Vice-President’s speech doesn’t befit the constitutional and ceremonial office he holds.

• They suggest a procedure for transparency in inquiries conducted by the judiciary and a broad-based National Judicial Appointments Commission to instill confidence in the rule of law.

• The Supreme Court’s recent order prescribing timelines to the President and Governors was within its powers of upholding constitutional principles.

• Judicial activism by the courts, including its use of Article 142, has contributed significantly to providing justice and holding the executive accountable.

• The current requirement of five judges for a Constitution Bench may be optimum, considering the precedent developed in the past seven decades and the pendency of cases in the Supreme Court.