Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has strongly objected to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that sets a deadline for the President to decide on state bills sent by governors. Addressing a group of Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar questioned the constitutional validity of directing the President in such a manner. “We cannot have a situation where the President of India is directed like this. On what constitutional basis can such an order be passed?” he asked. Dhankhar emphasized that such directives could undermine the dignity and authority of the highest constitutional office.
The Vice President referred to the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment that, for the first time, mandated a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved by state governors. The court stated that any delay beyond this period must be justified and encouraged cooperation between the Centre and state governments.
This judgment was given in the middle of a constitutional crisis in Tamil Nadu, during which Governor RN Ravi held back assent to various bills of the state for extended periods. The case was taken up by the court, leading to the historic verdict.
Dhankhar accepted the role of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3), which demands a bench of five or more judges. However, he argued that interpretation does not grant courts the authority to issue directives to the President.
He also spoke on the alleged recovery of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Verma. Dhankhar pointed out that while the President and Governors enjoy constitutional immunity, such protections are not extended to judges or other public officials.
“It has been more than a month since this came to light. Independence of the judiciary should not be a shield against legitimate inquiries,” he said, calling for transparency in the matter.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, invalidated the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to refer ten bills to the President a second time, terming it legally unsound. The court also stated that if the President withholds assent, the concerned state government has the right to challenge it legally.
