Vice-President’s Critique Sparks Judicial Accountability Debate

Vice-President’s Critique Sparks Judicial Accountability Debate

Why in the News ?

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s comments on judicial transparency, accountability, and power sparked debate. He questioned internal inquiry practices, timelines for Governors’ decisions, and judiciary’s extraordinary powers, urging better balance between democratic principles and judicial independence.

Vice-President’s Key Concerns on Judiciary:

• Criticized the lack of transparency in judicial inquiries, especially after cash was found at a Delhi High Court judge’s home.
• Questioned the Supreme Court’s ruling prescribing timelines for Governors and the President to act on state legislations.
• Raised doubts on judicial accountability, unlike legislature and executive, especially regarding judicial review and constitutional decisions.
• Voiced concern over excessive use of Article 142, which allows courts to ensure “complete justice” but could undermine democratic processes.

Critical Analysis: Support & Opposition

• The public widely shares concerns about opaque judicial inquiry processes, demanding transparent mechanisms.
• Experts suggest reforming the collegium through a broad-based National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for fair, accountable appointments.
• Supreme Court’s timeline verdict for Governors aligns with constitutional duty and past judgments, ensuring legislative efficiency.
• Judicial activism, including Article 142, has delivered justice in landmark cases like the Bhopal tragedy, coal block scam, women’s armed forces rights, and demolition regulations.

Judicial Independence: Balance of Powers

• Indian judiciary ensures constitutional sovereignty, unlike British parliamentary supremacy or American judicial supremacy.
• Judicial review is a “basic structure” of India’s Constitution, safeguarding democratic values.
• Healthy separation of powers—not confrontation—is essential for robust governance.