Vice President Dhankhar’s ridicule of the judge, serving as “super parliament” to determine the timeline for the president to decide state bills

Concerns over the timeline for the recent Supreme Court ruling to rule the bill for the president, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar said on Friday (April 17, 2025) that India has not bargained for the democracy of the judges to enforce administrative functions. |Photo source: PTI

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar expressed concern about the timeline of the president’s decision on the bill on Friday (April 17, 2025) that Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar expressed concern about the president’s timeline to decide the bill and said India has not formulated the legislation for democracy for judges, executed executive functions and served as the “super parliament”.

Last week, the Supreme Court made the first decision on the bill that the president should consider for her within three months from the date of receipt of the reference.

“There was a recent judgment that had directives on the President. Where are we going? What happened in the country? We have to be very sensitive. It’s not a question of censorship. We have never censored democracy today. The President was asked to make a decision in a time-limited way, and if not, a law was made,” Mr Dhankhar said.

He said he said in a speech by a group of Rajya Sabha interns: “So we have judges who will legislate, they will perform administrative functions, they will serve as super councils and absolutely no responsibility because the law of the land does not apply to them”.

Mr Dakhar said his concerns were at the “highest level” and he never thought “my life” and he would have the chance to see it.

He reminded the audience that the Indian president has a very high status. The President vowed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Others, including ministers, vice presidents, lawmakers and judges, have sworn in compliance with the Constitution.

He said: “We cannot use your guidance on the situation of the President of India and the sole right under the Constitution to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There must be five judges or more…”

Supreme Court to the State Act President

The SC’s judgment was a November 2023 petition filed against the Tamil Nadu government, which indefinitely rejected ten bills passed by the state’s parliament, some of which would be as early as 2020.

The Supreme Court has placed the president on a three-month deadline to decide whether to agree to the state bill submitted by the governor. The clock will begin to tick from the day the governor refers the bill to the president.

The Supreme Court ruled in its April 8 judgment: “In the event of any delay outside this period, appropriate reasons must be recorded and communicated to the states concerned.” In turn, states must cooperate with any questions or suggestions from the statement center.

Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan announced that the president should seek advice from the Supreme Court on the bill reserved by the governor to consider the consideration of its deliberations.

(Input with PTI)