Editorial: Stepping outside of their remits

Politicians are often given to making controversial statements that stir the hornet’s nest. But once they assume a high constitutional office, they tend to refrain from making such statements. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar seems to be making an exception. His recent statements regarding the judiciary have raised eyebrows, and irrespective of merit, if any, in what he said, eyebrows were raised regarding the tone and tenor, time and place and context of the statements.

The Vice-President’s burden of song was that the judiciary was making decisions and acting as a “super Parliament” and firing “nuclear missiles” at democratic forces. Ironically, critics may argue that the VP, too, could be accused of stepping outside of his remit. He objected to the judiciary issuing a directive to the President, who he said is in a very elevated position. He also claimed that the judiciary has no accountability because “the law of the land does not apply to them”. It was obvious that he was displeased with the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 to issue orders to ensure complete justice.

Firstly, the tone and tenor of the VP’s statements do not befit the office he holds. Secondly, the VP could have flagged it at a different and appropriate forum. Such public outbursts will only muddy the waters, divert the attention from the content, and could result in sowing seeds of distrust, resulting in the hardening of positions and leaving no room for discussion and deliberation to resolve issues, if any. In short, it will defeat the purpose. Thirdly, there’s the question as to who needs to raise the questions and in which forum. Needless to say, in such situations it is better to err on the side of caution or, in this case, on the side of discretion.

In recent years, the judiciary has often been criticised for not playing its due role under a checks and balances system while reviewing the actions of the legislative and executive branches. The judiciary has been somewhat circumspect, cautious and exercised greater restraint in dealing with highly contentious and controversial issues. But on an occasion when it delivers a verdict that is not liked by the powers that be, there’s a clamour to restrain it or clip its wings. It is important to

create an enabling environment wherein the judiciary can fulfil its constitutional role. Having said the above, no one can claim that there aren’t any problems with the judiciary. Or that the judiciary is beyond scrutiny or above criticism. However, raising the issue of judicial reforms whenever there’s an adverse judgement indirectly implies a link, a causal effect that somehow one is the reason for the other, which is, to put it mildly, insincere.

If the Supreme Court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case is construed to be an instance of judicial overreach, then it should be discussed and critiqued appropriately and addressed through constitutional means. Also, no one can deny that judicial reforms are needed, especially when it comes to the unflattering and unethical conduct of individual judges and their inappropriate utterances and questionable practices, especially involving corruption. There are also larger systemic problem relating to delayed justice due to high pendency in cases which needs to be solved.

To conclude, in the words of the VP, “any incursion by one in the domain of the other poses a challenge which is not good”.