Kapil Sibal slams VP Dhankhar over remarks on judiciary, calls them ‘Unconstitutional’ and politically tinted

‘No Speaker Should Be a Party’s Spokesperson’: Sibal

Addressing a press conference, Sibal emphasized the neutrality required of presiding officers. “You are equidistant between the opposition and the ruling party,” he said, adding that any deviation from this principle “lowers the dignity of the chair.”

His comments came in response to Dhankhar’s statement comparing Article 142 of the Constitution to a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.” Dhankhar had questioned the judiciary’s authority to set timelines for Presidential assent on bills, calling it an overreach.

Article 142: A Constitutional Power, Not a Weapon

Rejecting Dhankhar’s analogy, Sibal said, “Article 142 is a Constitutional provision, not something given by the government. It is not a nuclear missile.” He added that the Supreme Court steps in only when the executive fails to act, making its role crucial for maintaining democratic checks and balances.

Also Read: Jagdeep Dhankhar trains his guns at SC over ruling directing President, Governors to not sit on Bills

‘You Cannot Teach Judiciary a Lesson’

Sibal warned that such rhetoric undermines judicial independence. “Statements like these look like the judiciary is being taught a lesson. That is neither constitutional nor neutral,” he said, also criticizing Union Ministers Arjun Ram Meghwal and Kiren Rijiju for echoing similar sentiments.

He stressed that judicial independence is “fundamental to democracy” and asserted that “what is being done is clearly unconstitutional.”

‘President Acts on Ministerial Advice, Not Independently’

Clarifying constitutional procedures, Sibal noted that the President of India, like state Governors, acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. “If a bill is returned and passed again, the Governor or the President must assent to it,” he explained, questioning if a two-year delay on bills is justifiable in a democracy.

Selective History and Political Bias?

Calling out the Vice President’s selective references, Sibal said, “He spoke about 1984, but not about 2002. Talked of the Emergency but not the undeclared one going on now. Why is only Congress-era history remembered?”

He also flagged the pending impeachment motion against a High Court judge, highlighting how procedural delays are compromising accountability. “It’s been five months, and we’re still verifying signatures. How much longer will it take?” he asked.

‘You Cannot Interfere in the Courts’ Work’

Responding to Dhankhar’s comments on no FIR being filed after burnt cash was found at a judge’s residence, Sibal cited existing legal precedents. “The CJI decides on such matters. Neither courts should interfere in your work, nor should you interfere in theirs,” he said, invoking the principle of separation of powers.

‘Why Not the Same Respect as 1975 Verdict?’

Recalling the 1975 verdict that invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election, Sibal concluded by questioning why similar respect for judicial authority isn’t shown today. “That verdict was accepted then—why not now?” he asked.