‘An intrusion on legislature’s supremacy’: Kapil Sibal slams VP Dhankhar’s remarks on SC | India News

VP Dhankhar and Kapil Sibal (R)

NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Friday slammed Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for criticising the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that set a timeline for the President to decide on bills and struck down the Tamil Nadu governor’s decision to withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
He reflected on Tamil Nadu governor’s withholding of bills, passed by state assembly, calling it, “an intrusion on the supremacy of the legislature”.
Sibal drew attention that both the President and governors are constitutionally bound to act on the “aid and advice of ministers” and said the governor’s actions amounted to interference with the legislature’s authority.
“This should be known to Dhankhar ji (Vice President), he asks how the powers of the president can be curtailed, but who is curtailing the powers? I say that a minister should go to the governor and be there for two years, so they can raise issues which are of public importance, will the governor be able to ignore them?” Sibal asked during a press conference in Delhi.
Calling the governor’s withholding of bills “an intrusion on the supremacy of the legislature,” Sibal added, “yeh toh ulti baat hai (this is opposite of what should we). If Parliament passes a bill, can the President indefinitely delay its implementation? Even if it is not signed, does no one have the right to talk about it?”
He also directed his attack at Union ministers Arjun Ram Meghwal and Kiren Rijiju for their remarks on the court’s verdict.
“I am surprised about the fact that sometimes (Union minister) Meghwal says that one should stay within limits, other times (Union minister) Kiren Rijiju asks what is happening and what if they also do it? Dhankar ji says that before, 5 judges decided on a matter when there were only 8 judges, but now only two judges decide on it. However, either two or three judges decide on it anyway, as the Supreme Court sits as a bench, even with nine or eleven judges, and once thirteen also sat together, that is how it happens. People have to follow the ruling,” Sibal, who is also SC Bar association president, said.
Citing a past judgment against former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Sibal questioned why Dhankhar was raising objections now.
“People would remember that when the Supreme Court’s decision came regarding the election of Indira Gandhi, then only one judge gave the decision, and she was unseated. It was a one-judge decision, Justice Krishna Iyer, then it was okay for Dhankar ji? But now a two-judge decision came, so that is not correct because it is not in favour of the government,” Sibal said.
Meanwhile, senior Congress leader Randeep Surjewala also expressed his dissatisfaction with Vice President Dhankhar’s remarks criticism the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
In a post on X, Surjewala wrote: “The Supreme Court judgement putting Constitutional fetters on the power of Governors and President of India is timely, accurate, courageous and corrects the notion that ‘those holding high offices are above any fetters or imposition of checks and balances’ in exercise of their powers.”

He further added, “If President or Governors were to have such power, it will go against the very tenets of democracy, for the elected Parliament and Legislatures will be rendered powerless and helpless.”
Earlier this week, Dhankhar, while addressing Rajya Sabha interns, had criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment, saying some judges are now “legislating,” performing “executive functions,” and acting like a “Super Parliament.”
“President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, it becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them,” Dhankhar had said.
“There is a directive to the president by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day,” he said.
He also invoked Article 145(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the composition of benches deciding constitutional matters.
“We cannot have a situation where you direct the president of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There it has to be five judges or more,” Dhankhar said.
As per Article 145(3), a minimum of five judges must sit to decide any case involving a substantial question of constitutional law or for hearing references under Article 143.