VP Dhankhar Criticizes Supreme Court’s Directive on Presidential Timelines
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has raised serious concerns over the Supreme Court’s recent judgment that set a three-month deadline for the President of India to act on bills forwarded by state governors. In a strongly worded statement, he questioned whether the judiciary has the constitutional authority to impose timelines on the highest constitutional office.
Speaking to a group of Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar said it was beyond the judiciary’s powers to direct the President or Vice President on how to perform their duties, stating, “We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India, and on what basis?”
Separation of Powers Under Scrutiny
Dhankhar emphasized that India’s Constitution establishes a clear demarcation between the roles of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. While acknowledging that the judiciary has the power to interpret the Constitution, he warned against it exercising executive or legislative authority by issuing operational directives to other constitutional offices. Such actions, he cautioned, could disrupt the delicate institutional balance essential to a functioning democracy.
He further underlined that the Vice President and President are constitutional figures, not subject to judicial deadlines, and flagged what he views as the erosion of constitutional boundaries through such judgments.
Context: SC’s Directive on Delayed Assents
The Supreme Court’s judgment came in the backdrop of prolonged delays in governors assenting to bills passed by state legislatures, notably in states like Tamil Nadu. The court ordered that once a Governor forwards a bill to the President, the Centre must advise the President within three months. The court’s intention was to curb excessive delays and bring administrative accountability to the legislative process.
However, Dhankhar interpreted this as judicial overreach into executive functioning, describing it as an unprecedented move that could undermine the autonomy of the constitutional offices.
Preserving Institutional Harmony
Reiterating the importance of institutional respect, the Vice President stressed that the judiciary must remain within its interpretative mandate and not act as a “super-Parliament.” He warned that bypassing constitutional limits in the name of expediency risks weakening the foundations of governance itself.
As debates over judicial activism and constitutional propriety continue, Dhankhar’s remarks highlight growing friction between the organs of the Indian state and renew questions about how far checks and balances can stretch before they begin to collide.
