Article 142 Has Become a Nuclear Missile”: Vice President Dhankhar Makes Scathing Criticism of Supreme Court Over Presidential Order

”
New Delhi, April 17, 2025 – In a unprecedented rebuke to the judiciary, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday made a scathing criticism of the Supreme Court of India, alleging that it had crossed constitutional limits and invoked Article 142 as a “nuclear missile” against democratic institutions. His remarks, delivered while speaking to the sixth group of Rajya Sabha interns, have triggered a heated controversy over the role of the judiciary in running the country as well as separation of powers.

The Vice President was angry with a recent Supreme Court ruling which issued time-bound guidelines to the President on making decisions on Bills sent by Governors. The ruling was given by a two-judge bench as a response to a case related to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi holding up assent to state legislation.

“There is a direction to the President by a recent order. Where are we going? What is going in the country?” Dhankhar asked rhetorically, blaming the judiciary for “legislating, implementing, and judging—all at once—with no accountability.

He pointed out that Article 145(3) of the Constitution requires a minimum five-judge bench to rule on significant constitutional issues. “This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench. That’s not constitutionally acceptable. When this clause was drafted, the Court had eight judges. Now it has 31. Shouldn’t we set the bar higher?” he asked.

Dhankhar’s most dramatic allegation was his description of Article 142—a very exceptional provision giving the Supreme Court the authority to issue any order to achieve “complete justice”—as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.” He cautioned against a situation in which judges have unlimited power to disregard legislative and executive procedures.

The Vice President also brought eyebrows when he referred to the current scandal revolving around Justice Yashwant Varma, during which large amounts of money in cash were claimed to have been found at the judge’s home. “Why did it take seven days to bring this out? Why no FIR? How is it being investigated by a judicial panel without public disclosure?” he queried, suggesting an overall breakdown in openness.

Dhankhar expressed sorrow over the failure of the majority of judges to declare assets and insinuated more profound institutional decay. “In any normal circumstance, such delay would be unacceptable. Are we supposed to believe the rule of law doesn’t operate within ivory towers?” he wondered.

It’s not the first time Dhankhar has accused the judiciary of overreach, but his comment today represents a serious escalation because he’s essentially questioning the legitimacy of a decision that affects the highest constitutional post in the country—the President of India.

Legal commentators are split. Some view his remarks as a wake-up call to judicial accountability that is long overdue, while others caution that this will undermine public confidence in the judiciary and fuel a perilous constitutional confrontation.

As the country struggles with the implications, one thing is certain: the fragile equilibrium between the judiciary, executive, and legislature is under unprecedented pressure.