The recent friction between India’s executive and judiciary has taken a sharp turn with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s outspoken criticism of the Supreme Court, and the top court's cautious but firm response, reflecting broader tensions over constitutional roles, accountability, and the boundaries of judicial activism.
During a contempt hearing related to derogatory statements made in 2010 against a High Court judge and his son, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court made a noteworthy oral observation, saying:
“We are also thick-skinned; we don’t care about that part… We are not worried about these situations. They come every day.”
This came in the backdrop of Dhankhar’s comments criticising the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict, which directed state governors and the President to act on assembly-passed bills within a set timeframe — invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure “complete justice.” Dhankhar labelled the ruling a “constitutional aberration” and said that Article 142 is being used like a “nuclear weapon against democracy.”
Justice Kant, who is next in line to be the Chief Justice of India, appeared to downplay personal attacks or institutional criticism, focusing instead on broader public trust. In the same hearing, counsel urged the court to take cognisance of comments that “lower the dignity” of the judiciary, arguing that faith in the judicial system must be preserved — or the public may resort to scandalous accusations.
But Justice Kant maintained that institutional strength doesn't depend on shielding individuals and reiterated confidence in the judiciary’s integrity.
Meanwhile, Dhankhar has doubled down on his criticism, pointing not only to the April 8 ruling but also referencing past failures of the judiciary, such as:
-
The 1975 Emergency verdict, in which the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of fundamental rights.
-
The recent unaccounted cash and corruption case allegedly involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, which Dhankhar cited as an example of lack of accountability.
This rhetoric was echoed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who went further, saying that the judiciary’s actions — particularly those of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s successor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna — were pushing the country “towards anarchy” and “civil war.”
This clash reflects a growing unease between the judiciary and sections of the political leadership, especially over:
-
Judicial scrutiny of executive inaction (as seen in the TN Governor’s case),
-
Use of Article 142 as a tool for systemic intervention,
-
Concerns over corruption and lack of checks within the judiciary, and
-
Free speech versus contempt when it comes to public criticism of judges.
While the Supreme Court has so far responded with measured dignity, choosing to absorb criticism without escalating tensions, this moment may mark a new chapter in the balance of power debate — one that puts both institutional resilience and public accountability to the test.
