VP Dhankhar Asserts Parliamentary Supremacy, Cites Justice HR Khanna
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has once again stirred debate over the balance of power between the judiciary and legislature by strongly reiterating his belief in the supremacy of Parliament. Speaking at an event at Delhi University’s Campus Law Centre, Dhankhar emphasized that the Indian Constitution places Parliament at the center of the democratic framework, guided by the will of the people through their elected representatives.
Parliament’s Authority and Constitutional Interpretation
Dhankhar underscored that no institution, including the judiciary, should place itself above Parliament. He expressed concern over the expanded use of Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for “complete justice.” According to him, the article, while constitutionally valid, is being wielded excessively and resembles a “nuclear missile” being launched in ways that could override democratic norms. His remarks hinted at a deeper concern that judicial overreach may be undermining the constitutional mandate of the legislature.
Invoking Justice HR Khanna’s Legacy
In a pointed historical reference, Dhankhar invoked the dissenting judgment of Justice Hans Raj Khanna during the infamous ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla case in the Emergency era. Justice Khanna was the lone dissenting judge who opposed the suspension of fundamental rights—a stance that cost him the Chief Justice’s position but won him enduring respect. Dhankhar drew parallels to highlight how strong, independent voices within the judiciary have shaped Indian democracy, even while reaffirming that interpretation and evolution of the Constitution should primarily remain with Parliament.
Political Reactions and Ongoing Debate
The Vice President’s statements have reignited discussions on the constitutional balance between the legislature and judiciary. While his supporters argue that his remarks highlight the importance of legislative authority in a democracy, critics warn that undermining judicial autonomy could have serious implications for the constitutional checks and balances. The debate reflects a growing tension over the separation of powers in India’s democratic setup and the evolving roles of each branch in the governance framework.
