The Vice-President, Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar today said that, “ It is now over a month. Even if it is can of worms. Even if there are skeletons in the cupboard, time to blow up the can. Time for its lid to go out. And time for the cupboard to collapse. Let the worms and skeletons be in public domain so that cleansing takes place.”
Addressing the 6th batch of Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice-President’s Enclave today, Shri Dhnakhar stated, “ Let me take incidents that are most recent. They are dominating our minds. An event happened on the night of 14th and 15th of March in New Delhi, at the residence of a judge. For seven days, no one knew about it. We have to ask questions to ourselves. Is the delay explainable? Condonable? Does it not raise certain fundamental questions? In any ordinary situation, and ordinary situations define rule of law — things would have been different. It was only on 21st March, disclosed by a newspaper, that people of the country were shocked as never before. They were in some kind of limbo, deeply concerned and worried at this explosive alarming expose. Thereafter, fortunately, in public domain, we had input from authoritative source, the Supreme Court of India. And the input indicated culpability. Input did not lead to doubt that something was amiss. Something required to be investigated. Now the nation waits with bated breath. The nation is restive because one of our institutions, to which people have looked up always with highest respect and deference, was put in the dock.”
Emphasizing on the significance of rule of law he stated, “……. in a democratic nation purity of its criminal justice system defines its direction. Investigation is required. Boys and girls, no investigation under law is in progress at the moment. Because for a criminal investigation the initiation has to be by an FIR, First Information Report. It is not there. It is law of the land that every cognizable offence is required to be reported to the police, and failure to do so, failure to report a cognizable offence is a crime therefore you all will be wondering why there has been no FIR. The answer is simple. An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any Constitutional functionary including the one before you. One has only to activate the rule of law. No permission is required. But if it isJudges, their category, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in Judiciary but that is not given in the Constitution. Constitution of India has accorded immunity from prosecution only to the Honourable President and the Honourable Governors. So how come a category beyond law has secured this immunity? Because the ill effects of this are being felt in the mind of one and all. Every Indian, young and old, is deeply concerned. If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart.”
He further stated that, “There is a committee of three judges investigating the matter, but investigation is domain of the executive, investigation is not the domain of judiciary, is the committee under Constitution of India? No. Is this committee of three judges having any sanction under any law emanating from parliament? No. And what can the committee do? Committee can at the most make a recommendation. Recommendation to whom? And for what? The kind of mechanism we have for judges, the only action finally that can be taken is by the Parliament. When proceedings of removal are initiated, a month has passed, more than that, and investigation requires speed, expedition, preservation of incriminating material. As a citizen of the country and holding position which I do, I am concerned. Are we not diluting rule of law? Are we not answerable to ‘We the people’ who gave us the Constitution? And therefore, I would strongly urge everyone concerned to examine this as a test case. What legitimacy and jurisdictional authority does this committee possess? Can we have separate law made by a category and the law made by that category, dehors Constitution, dehors Parliament? The committee report, according to me, inherently lacks legal standing.”
Stressing on the principle of separation of power he underlined, “….When executive, the government, is elected by people, the government is accountable to Parliament, the government is accountable to the people at election. There is a principle of accountability in operation. In Parliament, you can ask questions, critical questions, because the governance is by the executive. But if this executive governance is by judiciary, how do you ask questions? Whom do you hold accountable in election? Time has come when our three institutions, legislature, judiciary, and executive, must blossom. And they blossom best, and best for the nation, only when they operate in their own area. Any incursion by one in the domain of the other poses a challenge, which is not good….”
Underscoring the importance of transparency, Shri Dhankhar stated, “ On January 27, 2025, a seven-member lokpal bench headed by a Former Supreme Court judge ruled. it possessed the jurisdiction to investigate corruption complaints against high court judges. Suo-moto cognisance was taken. And mind you, if you go to other judicial dispensations, in other countries that have democracies thriving, suo-moto to cognisance is unknown to them. And then, it was a stayed on one ground- Independence of judiciary. This independence is not a protection, This independence is not some kind of impregnable cover against enquiry, investigation, probe. Institutions thrive with transparency, with there being probe. The surest way to degenerate an institution or an individual is to give total guarantee there will be no enquiry, no scrutiny, no probe.”
In his address he further stated, “Constitution framers were very wise people……they framed one rule. The judges will be appointed under Article 124 and a consultation word was used. Boys and girls, you know the word consultation? Lexicon defines it. Consultation is not concurrence. Consultation is consultation. Article 124 was very specific and with respect to Article 124, we have a very important discourse by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and B. R. Ambedkar who did a great job in giving us this constitution. I’m quoting him.This was with regard to the question of the concurrence of Chief Justice and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar says, “ I think to allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of a judge is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the president or the government of the day. I therefore think that is also a dangerous proposition.”
“….But in the second judge’s case in 1993, the court interpreted consultation will be read as concurrence. Can it be done? The two words boys and girls are different. But the bench did not notice that the Indian Constitution uses these words consultation and concurrence in the same article, Article 370 with respect to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 has both expressions in the same sub-articles. How can these two words used differently by the constituent assembly
members in the constitution can be read differently? It was done…..” , he added.
Referring to the doctrine of basic structure of the constitution, Shri Dhankhar, “An event had taken place recently, I am dealing with only contemporaneous issues, an event had taken place recently on the release of a book and the focus of the book by a former judge of the Supreme Court was on basic structure. The day was chosen as 14th April, associated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Judge, former Judge of the Supreme Court and illustrious author of the book referred to 13th April. He narrated an incident that had taken place on 13th April at Jallianwala Bagh before independence where our people were killed, massacred, injured and by our own people led by General Dyer and then he came to the Doctrine of Basic Structure that this cannot happen now because of this doctrine. Examine for a moment this doctrine, Keshavanand Bharti gave to us, 13 judges of the Supreme Court assembled, the division was vertical 7:6, it can’t be more than that. The judgement was on 24th April 1973 and this according to the author is our saviour but after we had this basic structure doctrine. A Prime Minister to save our seat, imposed emergency on 25th June 1975, the judge has forgotten, the audience has forgotten. It was supposed to be engaging discourse, inquisitorial, no one asked a question That this was an incarnation, this was Amrit which would curb such incidents and which was being praised so much. In the context of Jallianwala Bagh, he forgot the recent history. 24th April 1973 and you see, as soon as two years were completed, Emergency was clamped. Lakhs of people were put behind the bars and it was up to 21st March 1977, lakhs of people, with this basic structure Supreme Court ruled, you have no fundamental right during emergency, this is so much for your tribute to basic structure. The impregnability of basic structure was so demolished to pieces by the highest court of the land, reversing, judgements of 9 High Courts that in one voice held, Fundamental Rights cannot be on a holiday during Emergency, there has to be access to Judiciary, highest court of land, a former judge being author of the book, eulogising the doctrine, the complete bulwark against assault on citizen rights, was so oblivious of what happened during his lifetime. Just imagine, we are being sold these narratives at a critical time because we don’t ask questions. I wish somebody in the audience should have asked the question, what happened to your Basic Structure Doctrine in 1975?”
Expressing his concern, Shri Dhankhar said, “My worries were at a very highest level. I never thought in my life I will have the occasion to see it. President of India is a very elevated position. President takes oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is taken only by president and her appointees, the Governors. Everyone, the Prime Minister, the Vice-President, the Ministers, the Parliamentarians, the judges, they take oath to abide by the Constitution. But to defend the Constitution, to preserve the Constitution, to protect the Constitution, that is the oath of the President of India, the supreme commander of the armed forces…..There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them. Let me tell you boys and girls, every Parliamentarian, and why Parliamentarian? Every candidate in any election to assembly or Parliament is required to declare assets. They just don’t do it. Some do, some don’t.”
“We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There it has to be five judges or more. Boys and girls, when Article 145(3) was there, the number of judges in the Supreme Court was eight, 5 out of 8, now 5 out of 30 and odd. But forget about it, the judges who issued a mandamus virtually to the President and presented a scenario it will be law of the land, have forgotten the power of the Constitution. How can that combination of judges deal with something under Article 145(3) if preserved it was then for five out of eight. We need to make amends in that also now. Five out of eight would mean interpretation will be by majority. Well, five constitutes more than majority in eight. But leave that aside. Article 142, Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to judiciary 24 x 7”, he added.
