Speaking at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal on Friday, he questioned how the CJI could be involved in an executive appointment through a statutory provision. He emphasized the need to reconsider this system, as it does not align with democratic principles.
Bhopal: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently raised concerns about the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) role in the selection of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director.
Speaking at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal on Friday, he questioned how the CJI could be involved in an executive appointment through a statutory provision. He emphasized the need to reconsider this system, as it does not align with democratic principles.
Expressing his thoughts, Dhankhar stated, “To stir your minds, how can in a country like ours or in any democracy, by statutory prescription, Chief Justice of India participate in the selection of the CBI director?”
He further questioned, “Can there be any legal rationale for it? I can appreciate that the statutory prescription took shape because the Executive of the day has yielded to a judicial verdict. But time has come to revisit. This surely does not merge with democracy. How can we involve the Chief Justice of India with any executive appointment!”
His remarks suggest that the involvement of the judiciary in executive decisions needs to be re-evaluated to maintain the balance of power in a democratic setup.
Referring to his experience as Parliamentary Affairs Minister in 1990, Dhankhar recalled a time when the Supreme Court had only eight judges. He pointed out how the composition of constitutional benches has remained unchanged despite a significant increase in the number of judges over the years.
He noted, “More often than not, all the eight judges sat together (on a bench hearing a case)…. When the strength of the Supreme Court was eight judges, under Article 145(3), there was a stipulation that interpretation of the Constitution will be by a bench of five judges or more.”
He further elaborated, “Please note, when this strength was eight, it (size of constitutional bench) was five. And the Constitution allows the highest court of the land to interpret the Constitution.”
While acknowledging the judiciary’s authority, Dhankhar cautioned against overreach.
He remarked, “But under the guise of interpretation, there can be no ‘arrogation of authority’, and the essence and spirit which the founding fathers had in mind under Article 145(3) must be respected.”
He then emphasized, “If I analyze arithmetically, they were very sure the interpretation will be by majority of judges, because the (total) strength then was eight. That five stands as it is. And the number (of total judges) is more than fourfold.”
Understanding Article 145(3) of the Constitution
Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution mandates that at least five judges must hear cases involving constitutional interpretation. Dhankhar’s concern is that despite the Supreme Court’s strength increasing over the years, the minimum number of judges required to interpret the Constitution has remained unchanged.
