Calling Article 142 “Nuclear Missile” Extremely Problematic : Sibal On Vice President’s Comments Against Judiciary
The recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar comparing Article 142 to a “nuclear missile” against democratic forces have sparked controversy, with Kapil Sibal (Senior Advocate and SCBA President) condemning the analogy as “extremely problematic”. Here’s the breakdown:
What is Article 142?
Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders or decrees necessary for “complete justice” in pending cases. It acts as a safety valve to fill legislative gaps or address systemic injustices.
Scope: Used in landmark cases like formulating Vishaka guidelines (sexual harassment), environmental protections (Taj Mahal preservation), and resolving legislative-executive conflicts (Tamil Nadu bills).
Recent application: Governor’s inaction, bypassing constitutional deadlocks.
The Controversy: VP Dhankhar’s criticism: He argued that Article 142 enables judicial overreach, citing the Tamil Nadu Governor case where the SC imposed timelines on the President to decide bills. He termed this an intrusion into executive functions and a threat to legislative supremacy.
Sibal’s rebuttal: Constitutional mandate: Article 142’s power is derived directly from the Constitution, not created by the judiciary.
Executive accountability: Governors/Presidents must act on ministerial advice, and delays violate constitutional duties. Judicial intervention ensures accountability.
Judicial independence: Sibal warned that such remarks undermine public trust in the judiciary, which is critical for protecting rights.
Separation of powers: The debate reflects tensions between judicial activism and executive authority. While critics label it overreach, proponents view it as necessary to resolve governance failures.
Democracy at risk: Sibal emphasized that attacking judicial independence threatens fundamental rights and constitutional governance.
The clash underscores the delicate balance between ensuring judicial accountability and preserving the judiciary’s role as the ultimate constitutional guardian.
