Theekkadan claimed that the Vice President’s remarks, made on April 17, 2025, were not only inappropriate but also amounted to scandalising and lowering the authority of the Supreme Court
New Delhi: A lawyer from Kerala, Subhash Theekkadan, who practices in the Supreme Court, has requested the Attorney General of India to allow him to start criminal contempt proceedings against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar.
The request was made after Dhankhar’s public comments that allegedly criticised the authority and powers of the Supreme Court.
Theekkadan claimed that the Vice President’s remarks, made on April 17, 2025, were not only inappropriate but also amounted to scandalising and lowering the authority of the Supreme Court. According to the lawyer, these statements were made in public and in Dhankhar’s official capacity, and they strike at the dignity and independence of the judiciary.
In his letter to the Attorney General, Theekkadan said the Vice President’s comments were direct attacks on the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, and these comments could interfere with the proper functioning of justice in the country.
He stressed that, “Such statements, especially coming from a high constitutional functionary like the Vice President of India, have a far-reaching and damaging effect on public confidence in the judiciary. The same undermines the dignity, authority, and credibility of the apex court. If left unchecked, such public contemptuous statements may embolden others to follow suit, thereby seriously eroding the foundational principles of the rule of law and separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
The controversy arises from remarks made by Vice President Dhankhar while speaking to Rajya Sabha interns, where he questioned a recent Supreme Court judgment dated April 8, 2025, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another.
He was addressing the valedictory function of the 6th Rajya Sabha Internship Programme at the Vice-President’s Enclave.
During his address, Vice President Dhankhar said “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. Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24×7.”
He further stated:
“There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We never bargained for democracy. The 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 a super-Parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them.”
The Vice President also questioned why no FIR was registered against former Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, following a reported cash recovery at his residence during a fire incident.
He also referred to a controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma, where a large amount of cash was allegedly found at the judge’s residence. Dhankhar questioned how a judicial inquiry committee was investigating the matter without even an FIR (First Information Report) being filed.
“It is now over a month, even if it is can of worms, even if there are skeletons in the cupboard, time to blow up the can … time for the cupboard to collapse. Let the worms and skeletons in public domain so that cleansing takes place,” he said.
Though he said he did not intend to target any individual personally, Dhankhar insisted that criminal investigation is necessary.
“No investigation under law is in progress at the moment because for a criminal investigation, the initiation has to be by an FIR. First Information Report. It is not there. Every cognizable is required to be reported to the police and failure to a cognizable offence is a crime,” he pointed out.
He also mentioned that even constitutional authorities can be subjected to an FIR, although for judges, special permission is required.
“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary including the one before you. One has only to activate the rule of law no permission is required but if it is judges their category … FIR cannot be straightway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in judiciary but that is not given in the Constitution. Constitution of India has accorded immunity from prosecution only to the Hon’ble President and the Hon’ble Governors so how come a category beyond law has secured this immunity because the ill effects of this are being felt in the mind of one and all.”
Commenting on the internal investigation committee formed by the Supreme Court to look into the Justice Varma issue, Dhankhar questioned its legal validity.
ALSO READ: Plea in Allahabad High Court: ‘Withhold Oath of Justice Yashwant Varma’
“A question we must think, there is a committee of three judges investigating the matter but investigation is domain of the executive. Investigation is not the domain of judiciary. Is the committee under constitution of India? No. Is this committee of three judges having any sanction under any law emanating from Parliament? No. What can the committee do, committee can at the most make a recommendation. Recommendation to whom and for what? The kind of mechanism we have for judges, the only action finally that can be taken is by the Parliament, when proceedings of removal are initiated. A month has passed more than that and investigation requires speed, expedition, preservation of incriminating material. As a citizen of the country and holding position which I do, I am concerned. Are we not diluting rule of law? Are we not answerable to? ‘We the people’ who gave us the Constitution.”
Dhankhar concluded his remarks by calling on all institutions and stakeholders to look at this issue seriously and treat it as a test case for the rule of law and constitutional boundaries.
“What legitimacy and jurisdictional authority does this committee possess. Can we have separate law made by a category and the law made by that category dehors constitution, dehors Parliament. The committee report according to me inherently lacks legal standing,” he concluded.
Subhash Theekkadan’s letter urges the Attorney General to give consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. He believes this step is essential to preserve the honour, respect, and trust in the country’s top court.
