Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent criticism of the Supreme Court for setting a timeline for the President to act on Bills sent by Governors has drawn strong responses. His remarks, including “There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading?” suggest that the judiciary has overstepped its limits. However, such statements appear to misrepresent the essence of the ruling and its constitutional background.
"Article 142 has become a nuclear missile available with the judges against democratic forces." – Vice President Dhankhar
This kind of language borders on intimidation rather than constructive criticism. The Supreme Court simply reiterated that the President must act within a reasonable period, which aligns with democratic accountability. The idea that the President is above constitutional checks is incorrect. The Court had already clarified in past judgments like Rameshwar Prasad (2006) and SR Bommai that Presidential actions can be reviewed, though the person remains immune from prosecution under Article 361.
Read Also:- Kapil Sibal Criticizes Vice President Dhankhar's Remarks on Article 142, Calls It Deeply Problematic
The President is not a decision-maker in isolation. As per Article 74, he is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the Union Cabinet. This advice is mandatory and not optional. In fact, the President’s role is more limited than that of a Governor, who still enjoys certain discretionary powers. Thus, the direction from the Court is essentially a directive to the Union Government.
“The President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months.” – Supreme Court
Importantly, this timeline was not invented by the Court. It was based on the Government’s own Office Memorandum from February 4, 2016, which recommended a three-month window to clear Bills. The Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions had also raised concerns about undue delays.
Read Also:- Article 142 Turned Into 'Nuclear Missile' Against Democratic Forces, Says Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar
Moreover, this is not a new precedent. In cases like Shatrughan Chauhan and Balwant Singh, the Court has earlier directed the President to act within a reasonable time, especially in mercy petitions, and has even held officers accountable for delays.
Some have raised concerns that a 5-judge bench should have decided the matter. But the principles applied are already part of established constitutional law. Past verdicts, including Shamsher Singh and the recent Punjab Governor case, laid the groundwork. Also, during the hearing, no party, not even the Union Government, demanded a Constitution Bench.
“There was no request during the hearing to refer the matter to a 5-judge bench.” – Supreme Court
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rejects ADM Naveen Babu's Wife's Plea for CBI Probe into His Death
The Vice President's comments also questioned whether Bills should be kept pending indefinitely. That’s the core issue. Should legislative decisions be stalled without justification? Even the Union Government had highlighted this concern in its internal communications.
The Court’s ruling seeks to ensure that governance remains responsive. It addresses legislative delays, not to undermine the President’s office but to prevent misuse of constitutional silence. Criticism of judgments is healthy in a democracy, but it must be grounded in facts and legal understanding.
“This judgment is not an affront to democracy, but a safeguard against constitutional deadlock.”
