Senior advocate Kapil Sibal responds to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s criticism of the judiciary, invoking the 1975 Indira Gandhi case to defend judicial authority.
Kapil Sibal Counters VP Dhankhar’s President Remark With Indira Gandhi Reference
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has pushed back against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent comments criticizing the Supreme Court of India. He cited the 1975 Indira Gandhi election case to highlight judicial precedence and the importance of maintaining constitutional balance.
What Did Dhankhar Say?
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling that stated the President must act within three months on bills passed by state legislatures but held by the Governor. Dhankhar described this as an “intrusion” into executive powers, even comparing Article 142 to a “nuclear missile” against democratic institutions.
Sibal’s Response: Remember 1975
Kapil Sibal responded by referencing the historic Justice Krishna Iyer verdict in 1975, which disqualified then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. That ruling, Sibal pointed out, came from a single judge, yet it was accepted by the country’s highest political office.
“If one judge could unseat a sitting Prime Minister in 1975, why question a two-judge bench ruling today?” Sibal said, emphasizing the legitimacy of judicial authority.
Role of the President Clarified
Sibal also addressed Dhankhar’s implication that the President’s role is being undermined. He clarified that under the Constitution, the President is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and does not possess individual discretion in such matters.
“The President is a constitutional head, not an executive authority. Decisions come from the Cabinet,” Sibal stated.
Upholding Judicial Independence
Expressing concern over Dhankhar’s comments, Sibal defended the judiciary as the most trusted institution in India. He warned that undermining the Supreme Court’s role could damage democratic checks and balances.
“We must protect the independence of the judiciary, which continues to enjoy the trust of the people,” he added.
Sibal also highlighted that public confidence in the judiciary is a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework. In times of political turmoil, citizens often look to the courts for justice and fairness. Attempts to question or weaken this trust may create long-term damage to institutional credibility and democratic processes.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s intervention in executive matters is not a sign of overreach but a constitutionally supported function meant to maintain checks and balances. Legal experts argue that judicial oversight ensures that no branch of government exceeds its mandate or acts arbitrarily. Sibal’s remarks, therefore, are not just a rebuttal to Dhankhar, but a broader call to uphold constitutional integrity.
Why This Matters
This exchange reflects ongoing tensions between India’s judiciary and executive, especially regarding the separation of powers. By invoking a landmark case from India’s constitutional history, Sibal draws attention to the enduring importance of judicial review in a functioning democracy.
Read More: General News