New Delhi: Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal slammed Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Friday for questioning the judiciary over the timeline for the President to take decisions, saying this is “unconstitutional” and he had never seen any Rajya Sabha chairman make “political statements” of this nature.
A day after Dhankhar used strong words against the judiciary, Sibal asserted that the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman remain equidistant between the Opposition and the ruling party, and cannot be the “spokesperson of the party”.
“Everyone knows that the Lok Sabha Speaker’s chair is in between. He or she is the Speaker of the House, not the speaker of one party. They also don’t vote, they only vote when there is a tie. The same is with the upper house. You are equidistant between the Opposition and the ruling party,” the senior advocate said at a press conference in New Delhi.
“Everything you say must be equidistant. No speaker can be the spokesperson of a party. I don’t say that he (Dhankhar) is but no Speaker in principle can be the spokesperson of any party. If it appears so then the dignity of the chair is lowered,” Sibal asserted.
Dhankhar Thursday questioned the judiciary setting a timeline for the President to take decisions and act as a “super Parliament”, saying the Supreme Court cannot fire a “nuclear missile” at democratic forces.
Dhankhar’s strong words to the judiciary came during his speech to Rajya Sabha interns, days after the Supreme Court sought to fix a timeline for the President to grant assent to the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor.
“So, we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and absolutely have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them,” Dhankhar said.
He also described Article 142, which grants plenary powers to the Supreme Court, as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24×7”.
Slamming Dhankhar for his remarks, Sibal said, “If you give such statements it will look as if judiciary is being taught a lesson. It is not neutral and not constitutional.”
The judiciary should not be attacked in this manner by the executive, especially two ministers – Arjun Ram Meghwal and Kiren Rijiju – and the Chairman of the House, as the judiciary cannot defend itself.
“Then the polity must defend the judiciary. Independence of the judiciary is fundamental to democracy in the country. What is being done is unconstitutional,” he said.
“I have never seen any chairman of the House make political statements of this nature. Even BJP chairman in the past (have not done so),” Sibal said, hitting out at Dhankhar.
Sibal said he was saddened and surprised by the statement of Dhankhar.
“Judicial institutions – High Courts or Supreme Courts, if there is faith in any institution, it is the judiciary. I feel that when government people do not like the decisions of the judiciary then the start accusing that it (judiciary) has gone beyond its limit. When they like it and the Opposition says something then they say it is the decision of the Supreme Court,” the former Congress leader said.
When someone raises questions about Article 370 or Ramjanam bhoomi judgement, the government people point out that it is a Supreme Court decision, he said.
“When (Justice J B) Pardiwala judgement came they say how can the Supreme Court say this. The judgement which you do not like is wrong and which is as per your thinking, it is fine. It is not right for a constitutional functionary to say such a thing,” Sibal said referring to Dhakhar’s remarks.
“I respect him a lot but you said article 142 is nuclear missile material, how can you say this? Article 142 has given powers to the Supreme Court and it is given by the Constitution, it is not by the government it is the Constitution to do complete justice,” Sibal said.
He also pointed out that the President of India is a titular head and acts on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
“The Governor acts on the aid and advice of the council of ministers in a state. So when a bill is passed it goes to the Governor, the Governor can make comments and send it back but if passed again, the governor has to give an assent as stated in the Constitution. The Governor can send the bill to the President. President acts on the aid and advice of the ministers, so the matter goes to the Centre. The President does not have personal powers,” he said.
Dhankar said how can President’s power be curtailed, Sibal noted and wondered who is curtailing the power of the President.
Can the Governor sit for two years on a bill that is important for people, Sibal asked and added that this amounts to an intrusion on the supremacy of the legislature.
“If you have a problem with a judgement, call for a review. If there are still problems, take an advisory opinion from Supreme Court,” Sibal said.
“He (Dhankhar) talked about 1984 but did not talk about 2002. You talked about an emergency bit not undeclared emergency that is going on, you did not talk about capture of institutions,” Sibal said in a scathing criticism of Dhankhar’s comments.
He said it seems that he only talks about what happened in Congress governments and not after 2014.
“We moved an impeachment motion against judge of a High Court in December; it was signed by more than 50 members. We are in April, it took five months to find out whether those signatures are genuine or not. How many more months would it take?” Sibal said.
“If you do not with expedition decide the matter then the argument for us is that we cannot do anything. If the Governor doesn’t not clear bills, the judiciary cannot do anything,” he said.
If the executive doesn’t do its job the judiciary has to intervene, Sibal asserted.
Article 142 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to issue orders that ensure “complete justice” in any matter before it.
Sibal also hit out at Dhankhar for his remarks questioning the lack of an FIR in the discovery of wads of burnt cash from the residence of a High Court judge.
“You will tell me when FIR will be done. There is a judgement on that also that the CJI will decide. You cannot interfere in the work of courts nor can the courts interfere in your work,” the Independent Rajya Sabha member said.
Sibal also recalled the 1975 Supreme Court judgment that invalidated then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election.
“People would remember that when the Supreme Court’s decision came regarding the election of Indira Gandhi, only one judge – Justice Krishna Iyer – gave the decision,” he said. “That was acceptable to Dhankhar ji, but now a two-judge bench ruling is not right because it is not in favour of the government,” he said.
PTI
