Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, while addressing a gathering at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal, raised significant concerns over the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in executive appointments, particularly in the selection process of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director. He questioned how, even through statutory prescription, the Chief Justice could participate in such decisions, arguing that this practice does not align with democratic principles or the separation of powers. Dhankhar pointed out that this arrangement was the result of the executive yielding to judicial verdicts, but he strongly advocated for revisiting and reassessing such norms to ensure they align with constitutional values and democratic accountability.
Expanding on his argument, the Vice President asserted that governance by judicial decree creates a "constitutional paradox" that India, as the world's largest democracy, can no longer afford. He emphasized that all institutions must operate strictly within their constitutional bounds and that the executive, judiciary, and legislature should respect the principle of institutional autonomy. According to Dhankhar, the government remains accountable to the legislature and, ultimately, to the electorate. However, when executive governance is influenced, outsourced, or taken over by other institutions, it weakens the very foundation of democracy by reducing direct accountability. He warned that any undue intervention from the judiciary or legislature in executive matters is "antithetical to constitutionalism" and disrupts the balance of power envisioned in the Constitution.
The Vice President further elaborated on the broader issue of institutional autonomy, stating that democracy thrives not on institutional isolation but through coordinated autonomy, where each branch of government functions effectively within its designated domain. He observed that judicial interference in executive functions has become increasingly frequent and widely debated in legal and political circles. While acknowledging that judicial review is an essential mechanism to ensure that laws conform to constitutional principles, he stressed that the power to amend the Constitution ultimately rests with Parliament. He reiterated that judicial interpretation must not extend to assuming the role of governance, as that would be a clear overreach of judicial authority.
Dhankhar also criticized what he described as the increasing public presence of the judiciary beyond court judgments, arguing that judges should let their verdicts and rulings speak for themselves rather than engaging in public discourse on various issues. He cautioned that such expressions, outside the legal framework, risk undermining the institutional dignity of the judiciary and could lead to a perception of bias or encroachment into executive and legislative domains. Drawing comparisons with judicial practices in other democracies, he observed that Indian judges engage in public discussions far more frequently than their global counterparts, which he suggested could dilute the judiciary's independent and neutral stance.
Addressing the long-debated "doctrine of basic structure," Dhankhar expressed skepticism over its legal foundations. The doctrine, established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, states that Parliament cannot amend certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution. Dhankhar cited a book by former Solicitor General Andhyarujina on the case, stating that the doctrine has a "very debatable jurisprudential basis." He argued that the doctrine has effectively placed limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, which raises questions about the true intent of constitutional framers. He pointed out that constitutional interpretation required a bench of at least five judges when the Supreme Court had only eight judges in 1990. Given that the strength of the Supreme Court has since more than quadrupled, he suggested that the proportionality of constitutional benches should be reconsidered in light of current realities.
Delving deeper into the principle of constitutional interpretation, Dhankhar argued that while the judiciary has the authority to interpret the Constitution, it must not overstep its role by attempting to legislate or dictate governance. He cautioned against "arrogation of authority" under the guise of judicial interpretation and stressed that the spirit and intent of the Constitution, as envisioned by its framers, must be upheld. He called for a balanced approach where all institutions function in harmony without encroaching upon each other’s domains.
Highlighting the fundamental role of free speech in a democracy, Dhankhar warned that any restrictions on the right to express oneself could have serious consequences for democratic governance. He stated that democracy flourishes through open dialogue, debate, and deliberation, and that any attempt to suppress or dilute free expression ultimately weakens the democratic fabric of the nation. He urged all stakeholders to uphold the values of free speech and open discussion, ensuring that differing perspectives are heard and respected.
In addition to his address at the National Judicial Academy, the Vice President planted a sapling in memory of his late mother, Kesari Devi, as a symbolic tribute. He later attended the wedding of Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s younger son in Bhopal, demonstrating his engagement in both institutional and personal commitments during his visit. His speech, which touched upon critical constitutional and governance issues, is likely to spark further debate among legal experts, political leaders, and scholars on the evolving role of the judiciary and its relationship with the executive in India's democratic framework.
