Congress MP Singhvi says Vice President Dhankhar should not have commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling. He defends Article 142 as a powerful tool for delivering complete justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Congress Member of Parliament and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi has strongly disagreed with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s comments on a recent Supreme Court judgment.
He said the Vice President, who holds the second-highest constitutional position in the country, should not have spoken on such matters.
“With the deepest respect to him, I would disagree with almost all aspects of this. And the first aspect I would disagree with is that the Vice President is the holder of a very, very high office, indeed the second-highest constitutional office in the country. There is absolutely no need for him to comment or deal with such matters. This is my humble opinion,”
-Mr Singhvi told media on Friday.
The controversy began when Vice President Dhankhar criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the delay in clearing bills passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court had directed that any bill sent to the President after being passed by a state assembly should be decided upon within three months.
The court also used its special constitutional power under Article 142 to consider the re-passed bills by the Tamil Nadu assembly as deemed to have been approved.
Responding further, Mr Singhvi stated that other top constitutional figures like the President of India also refrain from commenting on such judicial matters.
“The President of India does not comment on such things and on this issue, there is no difference between the President and the Vice President. Previous incumbents of the office have not commented on such issues and there is no reason to start this process,”
-the Congress MP said.
On April 12, 2025, the Supreme Court, during a hearing on the conflict between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the DMK government, made an important ruling. It stated that the President must respond to any bills sent to her by the Governor within three months of receiving them. The court invoked its special authority under Article 142 to treat the bills re-passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly as valid and passed.
Mr Singhvi emphasised that even the Prime Minister avoids commenting on judicial issues and suggested that others should follow the same example.
“The next in the warrant of precedent, the Prime Minister doesn’t comment on these issues and he should not. So I think that is really not necessary. Before I tell you other aspects of what Article 142 is and why in the facts of this case, where I happen to be the lead counsel, what the Supreme Court did was eminently reasonable, necessary and required to be done…”
-Mr Singhvi said.
He fully supported the use of Article 142 by the Supreme Court and explained that it is a well-established and respected constitutional provision aimed at ensuring complete justice in complex matters.
“Before we turn to the case at hand where this judgment came, any important question is what is Article 142? The Vice President has said that [Article] 142 could have become a misguided, unguided missile etc. But we forget that [Article] 142 is a venerable old power, put in our Constitution by the framers, people far wiser than us, led by Babasaheb Ambedkar, the drafting committee, and various other members of the Constituent Assembly.”
It is a power given 75 years ago when it was being considered to be given exclusively to the Supreme Court, not to any high court. It is a recognition of the entrustment of what is called a special, a unique and a sui generis power, only to the Supreme Court to do full and complete justice, even beyond the law, even beyond the text of the law. The idea is that you will be able to tailor, modulate and, you know, create a relief which will do justice in all respects,”
-Mr Singhvi explained to media.
He also stated that the use of this power is not new, and the judiciary has already laid down rules to regulate it.
“I must add here, this power has been exercised for the last 75 years repeatedly. And once or twice when the power was exercised in the early years, subsequent judgments have put guidelines and various criteria. So it’s not a lawless power. It’s not an uncontrolled power. It’s been confined, clarified, cribbed and conditioned by the Supreme Court itself. So to suggest it is kind of a Jungle Raj power is not right,”
-he said.
This legal debate emerged from an ongoing conflict between the Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK, and the Governor. The Governor had delayed giving assent to several bills passed by the state assembly.
The Tamil Nadu government moved to the Supreme Court in 2023, saying that 12 bills — including one from the year 2020 — had not received any decision from the Governor.
On November 13, 2023, the Governor said he was withholding approval from 10 of these bills. In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly held a special session on November 18, 2023, and passed those same bills again. Later, some of them were sent to the President for consideration.
Now, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that such delays cannot go on indefinitely. The President must decide on the bills within three months. The court’s use of Article 142 ensured justice was done, as per Mr Singhvi and many legal experts.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
