On April 18, 2025, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal responded sharply to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's recent comments on the judiciary, where Dhankhar criticized the Indian judiciary for allegedly overstepping its constitutional boundaries. Dhankhar had described Article 142 as a "nuclear missile" at the disposal of the judiciary, capable of targeting democratic forces at any time. Sibal, a prominent Congress leader and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, expressed surprise and dismay at these remarks.

Sibal emphasized that the Indian judiciary is one of the most trusted institutions in the country, and such criticisms from government figures undermine the public trust in judicial independence. The senior lawyer pointed out that when the government dislikes a judicial decision, it often resorts to accusing the judiciary of overstepping its powers. He defended the role of the judiciary, particularly Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court the authority to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice. Sibal clarified that this provision is a vital aspect of the judiciary’s function to ensure fairness in the legal system.

Furthermore, Sibal questioned Vice President Dhankhar’s understanding of the constitutional role of the President. He stressed that the President does not hold any personal powers and acts solely on the advice of the cabinet. According to Sibal, the President is a titular head of state, and their actions are always in line with the government’s directives. He also brought attention to the role of Governors in withholding bills, asserting that this should not be seen as a violation of legislative supremacy but rather an exercise in the broader constitutional framework.

In his statement, Sibal addressed Dhankhar’s inquiry regarding the curtailment of the President’s powers, challenging the notion that the President’s powers were being undermined. He pointed out that a President could not delay bills indefinitely without justifiable reason, highlighting that the role of the President is inherently linked to the executive’s direction. Sibal urged Dhankhar to understand this distinction, criticizing the Vice President’s apparent lack of knowledge about the functioning of the executive branch.

Sibal also expressed concern over the comments made by Union Ministers Arjun Ram Meghwal and Kiren Rijiju. He was particularly critical of their statements, which, according to him, were part of an ongoing attempt by the government to stifle judicial autonomy. Sibal pointed out that the government often questions the decisions of the judiciary when they do not align with its interests. He reminded the media and the public of instances when judgments from single judges or smaller benches were accepted without question, as was the case with the famous Indira Gandhi election case, where a one-judge decision led to her disqualification.

Addressing the issue of judicial decisions being made by smaller benches, Sibal questioned the consistency of Dhankhar’s position. He referred to the 1975 Indira Gandhi election case, where Justice Krishna Iyer's one-judge decision was accepted without objection. Sibal argued that if smaller benches made decisions that were unfavorable to the government, they should not be treated differently from decisions made by larger benches. His remarks came in response to Dhankhar’s criticism of recent Supreme Court judgments and his assertion that the judiciary was exceeding its authority by issuing directions to the President and the executive.

In his address, Dhankhar had mentioned the evolving role of judges and the increasing instances of judicial activism. He also raised concerns about the implications of certain judicial directives, such as one that required the President to act in a time-bound manner. Dhankhar’s comments echoed broader concerns within the government regarding the growing influence of the judiciary in political matters. However, Sibal refuted these arguments, stating that the judiciary’s role in upholding the Constitution is indispensable for the functioning of democracy.

In conclusion, Sibal's remarks underscore the ongoing tension between the executive and judiciary in India. The Congress leader’s criticism of Dhankhar and the government’s stance on judicial independence highlights the complex power dynamics at play within India's democratic system. While Sibal continues to defend the autonomy of the judiciary and the proper functioning of the executive, it remains to be seen how these debates will shape future judicial and political discourse in the country.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.

Join our Trading with CA Abhay Telegram Channel for regular Stock Market Trading and Investment Calls by CA Abhay Varn - SEBI Registered Research Analyst.