Supreme Court under attack

In a disturbing turn of events, the Supreme Court of India has come under unprecedented and vitriolic attacks from high-ranking government officials, including the Vice-President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, and Members of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). These assaults on the judiciary are not merely verbal spats but represent a dangerous erosion of the principles of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The recent remarks by Dhankhar, who described Article 142 of the Constitution as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces,” and the subsequent attacks by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma, signal a troubling shift in the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. The immediate trigger for these remarks was the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 26, 2023). The apex court had addressed a constitutional crisis when Governor R.N. Ravi indefinitely withheld assent to ten bills passed by the state legislature, violating Article 200. The Court invoked Article 142 to deem the bills assented, upholding the constitutional framework and preventing executive stagnation. This intervention was not an overreach but a necessary step to ensure legislative processes were not derailed. Criticism, such as characterizing Article 142 as a “nuclear missile,” reflects a misunderstanding of its role. The constitution describes Article 142 as a constitutional safeguard enabling the Court to deliver complete justice, not a threat. Its use here was lawful and justified. Dhankar’s diatribe against the Supreme Court was followed up by BJP MPs Dubey and Sharma regarding the judiciary and are deeply concerning. Dubey’s suggestion to shut down Parliament if the judiciary continues to interpret laws reflects a misunderstanding of the judiciary’s role. The judiciary does not create laws; it interprets and upholds them, ensuring constitutional principles are maintained. When laws like Section 66A of the IT Act or Section 377 of the IPC are struck down, it is to protect citizens’ rights, not to overstep legislative authority. Such politically charged attacks by constitutional functionaries erode public trust, which is vital for the judiciary’s independence and legitimacy. The oaths taken by the Vice-President and Members of Parliament under the Constitution are not mere formalities but solemn commitments to uphold the Constitution and respect the balance of power. Criticism of the judiciary, while permissible in a democracy, must be fair, reasoned, and made in good faith. These remarks by Dhankhar, Dubey, and Sharma, however, cross the line into contempt, violating constitutional oaths and undermining the rule of law. Such statements are not constructive criticisms but politically motivated tirades aimed at eroding the judiciary’s credibility. The judiciary, like any institution, is not infallible and must be held accountable through legal and constitutional means. However, public vilification by high-ranking officials sets a dangerous precedent, undermining India’s democratic system. Such attacks reflect a disregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers, essential for liberal democracy. These assaults on the judiciary are not merely criticism of the Supreme Court but an attack on the Constitution and its democratic principles. Judicial independence is vital for India’s democracy, and if this trend persists, it will erode the rule of law and imperil the future of Indian democracy. Perhaps therein lies the catch.