When constitutional dignitaries speak, their words echo beyond mere expressions of personal beliefs; they reflect upon the very institutions they represent. Recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticising the Supreme Court’s powers and judgments highlight precisely why holders of ceremonial offices must uphold extraordinary caution in their public statements. Dhankhar’s assertion that the Supreme Court exercises “absolutely no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them,” accompanied by his labelling of the apex court as a “super parliament,” has sparked controversy. Such language is deeply concerning, not only due to its provocative nature but because it comes from an office traditionally regarded as neutral and apolitical. As Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar occupies a position that demands absolute neutrality, making his partisan commentary particularly troubling. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court unique powers to pass orders necessary for “complete justice” in matters pending before it. This authority has long been debated in constitutional jurisprudence, but it remains integral to the Court’s ability to deliver equitable justice in complex cases. Dhankhar’s criticism of these powers, referring to their invocation in the context of sensitive judgments, including the recent Ravi versus Tamil Nadu government case, risks undermining judicial independence, a cornerstone of Indian democracy.
This incident, regrettably, is not isolated. Over the past few years, India has witnessed several governors and ceremonial officeholders crossing boundaries and entering the realm of political discourse. While governors have increasingly become controversial figures, often accused of acting as extensions of the political parties that appointed them, the Vice President’s role has remained relatively uncontroversial until now. Dhankhar’s statements threaten to blur these critical distinctions, undermining public confidence in impartial constitutional posts. Historically, India’s constitutional framers envisioned distinct roles for each constitutional office. B.R. Ambedkar, during the Constituent Assembly debates, stressed the necessity of insulating constitutional offices from partisan politics to ensure a stable and impartial democratic framework. These principles are being increasingly tested as incumbents engage in openly partisan or controversial commentary. International parallels provide clarity on why neutrality in such roles is critical. In established democracies, ceremonial officeholders rigorously avoid direct political commentary to preserve their neutrality. The British monarchy, for instance, despite significant symbolic power, maintains absolute silence on political controversies to safeguard public trust in its impartiality.
India’s judiciary, while not above critique, demands respectful dialogue and institutional courtesy, particularly from those who hold other branches of government accountable. Judicial accountability mechanisms exist, including parliamentary procedures for impeachment and judicial reviews, ensuring checks and balances are maintained without necessitating inflammatory rhetoric from constitutional authorities. The Vice President’s statements thus underline a worrying trend in Indian political culture—the increasing normalisation of partisan rhetoric from non-political constitutional offices. Maintaining the sanctity and neutrality of these roles is vital to the health of Indian democracy. Dhankhar’s recent comments should serve as a reminder that constitutional officeholders must consciously adhere to their mandate, refraining from public commentary that erodes institutional integrity. Ultimately, it is imperative to reinforce boundaries between ceremonial offices and political partisanship. India’s democratic fabric, sustained by the careful balance of powers, relies heavily on the judiciousness and restraint of its constitutional functionaries. Vice President Dhankhar’s recent remarks are a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to these constitutional ethics.