logo
"Biggest Challenge From Within": Jagdeep Dhankhar Attacks Judiciary Again

"Biggest Challenge From Within": Jagdeep Dhankhar Attacks Judiciary Again

NDTV01-05-2025

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has called for understanding and maturity among constitutional institutions to be mindful of their defined limits in order to foster mutual respect among them.
He pointed out that conflicts between constitutional institutions do not help in maintaining a thriving democracy.
"Every institution has its own defined role, and no institution should encroach on another's responsibility. We must honour the Constitution in its true spirit," Mr Dhankhar said at the launch of Uttar Pradesh Governor Anandiben Patel's memoir ' Chunautiyan Mujhe Pasand Hain '.
While the Vice President did not name any constitutional institution, he was critical of the Supreme Court over its landmark judgment that set deadlines for the President and Governors to clear bills passed by state assemblies.
"The most dangerous challenges are the ones that come from within... which we cannot openly discuss. These have no logical basis, no connection to national development, and are rooted in governance. I have personally endured such challenges," he said.
"It is our binding duty that all constitutional institutions respect each other - and such respect is only possible when institutions function within their respective domains. When there is confrontation, democracy does not flourish," Mr Dhankhar said.
"To comment on a post as dignified as the President's is, in my opinion, a matter of deep reflection," he added, this time clearly alluding to the Supreme Court.
सबसे खतरनाक चुनौती वह होती है, जो अपनों से मिलती है - जिसकी हम चर्चा भी नहीं कर सकते। जिसका कोई तार्किक आधार नहीं होता, जिसका राष्ट्र के विकास से कोई संबंध नहीं होता, जो केवल राज्य-कार्य से जुड़ी होती है।
आप ही नहीं, महामहिम राज्यपाल, मैं भी इन चुनौतियों का शिकार रहा हूँ -... pic.twitter.com/bPXCIHWHRY
— Vice-President of India (@VPIndia) May 1, 2025
"Just as the legislature cannot deliver legal judgments - which is the judiciary's domain - similarly, the judiciary must refrain... I have the highest regard for the judiciary. Having practised law for over four decades, I can say we have some of the finest judges. But I appeal for a collaborative and cooperative approach," he said.
On April 22, the Vice President's public attacks on the Supreme Court included criticism for contradictory statements, in two separate landmark verdicts, about the Preamble of the Constitution - the 1967 IC Golaknath case and the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case. Mr Dhankhar also questioned the court's role during the Emergency imposed by former prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1975.
"In one case, the Supreme Court says the Preamble is not part of the Constitution... in another it says it is... but let there be no doubt about the Constitution. Elected representatives will be ultimate masters of what the Constitution will be. There cannot be any authority above them..."
The Supreme Court, he said, had overturned verdicts by nine high courts on the imposition of Emergency, which he called "the darkest phase in democratic history", and the suspension of fundamental rights. "I say 'darkest' because the highest court in the land ignored the verdict of nine high courts... that democracy's fundamental rights could never be put on hold..."
In the judgment that set deadlines for the President to decide on bills, the Supreme Court used the power vested in Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives it special powers to pass orders that are enforceable across the country and are "necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it".

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

As Pune gears up for Pride March tomorrow, a transgender couple faces bureaucratic hurdles as they wait to tie the knot
As Pune gears up for Pride March tomorrow, a transgender couple faces bureaucratic hurdles as they wait to tie the knot

Indian Express

time20 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

As Pune gears up for Pride March tomorrow, a transgender couple faces bureaucratic hurdles as they wait to tie the knot

Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, affirmed the rights of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry under existing laws. Priti, 29, a transgender from Jamshedpur who aspires to be a beautician and is waiting to tie the knot with Pune-based Trinay, 34, a transman legally recognised as male on his Aadhaar card, however faces several challenges to exercising this right. 'I have my TG Identity card and like any other woman, I want to be a wife, parent, and live with my husband. However, it has been more than one and a half years since the judgment but our transgender community still awaits this right,' Priti said. She hopes to raise this issue at the 13th Annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer Pride March to be held in Pune on Sunday. Priti, who has passed Class 12 and worked in the hotel management sector, is yet to be accepted by her family. 'I am a transgender person, not a sex worker. I want to become a beautician and earn my living. Mujhe jeena hai (I want to live),' Priti said. She met Trinay on an online portal, and before long, they forged a deep connection as they opened up about their personal struggles, finding strength and understanding in each other's stories. Trinay, assigned female at birth, but who always felt like a male deep inside, had experienced several challenges due to his situation. 'I wanted to pee like a boy, and wear tight T-shirts. Menstruation would give me panic attacks,' recalled Trinay, who works at a tech firm in the city. Deciding that he could not live this dual life anymore, he eventually transitioned to a male after undergoing gender affirming surgery. Speaking to The Indian Express, Trinay said, 'Priti and I have been doing the rounds of the marriage registrar's office only to return disappointed. Instead of guiding us on the online application process and other details, we were asked to obtain a court order.' The duo met Bindumadhav Khire, an LGBTIQ activist and director of Bindu Queer Rights Foundation, Pune, and spoke about their difficulty in registering their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 'Both of them have the requisite IDs. The transman has a collector-issued ID with gender stated as 'male' and the other transgender person has a collector-issued ID with the gender stated as 'transgender' as per provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the corresponding Rules (2020). I too approached the Marriage Registrar, but was told that they have not received any notification with regard to the legality of registering the marriage of transgender people. So they have to obtain an order from the high court or a notification from the government in this regard,' Khire told The Indian Express. The activist later filed a grievance in May on the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System to the Ministry of Home Affairs/Legislative Matters seeking a notification by the central government, to all states and Union territories, on the legality of registering the marriage of a transgender person in a heterosexual relationship. Khire, who received a response on June 6, said that suggestions made in the grievance have been noted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. 'We now hope that action will be taken in this case,' Khire said. When contacted, senior lawyer Anand Grover said that as per the top court's ruling, there was no legal prohibition on transgender individuals from getting married. Meanwhile, at the Marriage Registrar's office, authorities said that the process is now online and they have not received any application from transgender persons so far. While experts said it was likely that some registration offices may require guidance from higher authorities, if they have not previously handled such registrations, Khire said that it was important that LGBTIQ rights granted by the Supreme Court do not remain only on paper. 'This LGBTIQ Pride Month, it is important that LGBTIQ rights granted by the Supreme Court are implemented in letter and spirit. Transgenders who were granted legal recognition in the 2014 judgment (National Legal Services Authority v/s Union of India) still await their right to marry the person of their choice,' Khire added. As per the Supreme Court judgment dated October 17, 2023, in the case involving one Supriyo Chakraborty, the apex court stated, '…..Consequently, we agree with the conclusion…that transgender persons in heterosexual relations have the right to marry under existing laws, including in personal laws regulating marriage. The court's affirmation of the HC judgment in Arun Kumar v Inspector General of Registration…is based upon a correct analysis.' In Arun Kumar's case, the Madras High Court had said in 2019, 'A marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman, both professing Hindu religion, is a valid marriage in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Registrar of Marriages is bound to register the same. By holding so, this Court is not breaking any new ground. It is merely stating the obvious. Sometimes, to see the obvious, one needs not only physical vision in the eye but also love in the heart.' Anuradha Mascarenhas is a journalist with The Indian Express and is based in Pune. A senior editor, Anuradha writes on health, research developments in the field of science and environment and takes keen interest in covering women's issues. With a career spanning over 25 years, Anuradha has also led teams and often coordinated the edition. ... Read More

Bharat Mata portrait row: CPI hoists national flag, plants saplings
Bharat Mata portrait row: CPI hoists national flag, plants saplings

Hindustan Times

time22 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Bharat Mata portrait row: CPI hoists national flag, plants saplings

Thrissur , CPI, the second-largest partner in the ruling LDF in Kerala, on Saturday hoisted the national flag and planted saplings as a mark of protest against the usage of the Bharat Mata portrait at an Environment Day event in the Raj Bhavan. State Agriculture Minister and CPI leader P Prasad had boycotted the event at the Raj Bhavan on June 5 over the use of the portrait, citing that it was the one used by the RSS. The Left party had announced that it would hoist the national flag, which is the symbol of Bharat Mata, at all its branches on Saturday and would plant saplings as a mark of protest against the Raj Bhavan's action. CPI state secretary Binoy Viswam hoisted the flag and planted the sapling at the party district office in Thrissur on Saturday morning. State Revenue Minister P Rajan and senior leader and former minister V S Sunil Kumar were among those who were present during the protest event. After the event, Viswam sought to know whether the Constitution of the country or the policies of the RSS were important for Governor Vishwanath Rajendra Arlekar. "This flag is the Bharat Mata. There is no Bharat Mata other than this," he said, hoisting the national flag. Apparently criticising the Governor, he said any attempt to impose another concept of Bharat Mata is "unconstitutional" and "anti-national". CPI leaders and workers gathered and raised "Bharat Mata ki jai" slogan also. Meanwhile, CPI state secretary M V Govindan rejected reporters' question about whether the ruling party was not keen to criticise the Governor in the matter like its front partner CPI. "Raj Bhavan should not be used as a venue to propagate communal ideologies. No symbol that propagates communal ideologies should be displayed at a public place like Raj Bhavan. That is our stand," he said. He also said he himself appreciated Agriculture Minister Prasad when he had boycotted the Raj Bhavan event over the portrait issue. The Left government in Kerala on Friday made it clear that it was not in agreement with the use of the Bharat Mata portrait at the Environment Day event at the Raj Bhavan here, as the picture was not authorised as the official version by the Constitution or the Indian government. Minister Prasad, who had boycotted the event, said on Friday that those in constitutional offices cannot convert government programmes into political events. A similar view was also expressed by state General Education Minister V Sivankutty, who said that the Raj Bhavan and the Governor were above politics and said that Arlekar should withdraw from the stand taken by him. As the incident triggered a row, the Governor had issued a statement saying that "Whatever be the pressure, from whichever quarters, there will be no compromise whatsoever on Bharat Mata."

The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term

Time of India

time35 minutes ago

  • Time of India

The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term

Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress ' authority and advance his agenda. "What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president," said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs. Live Events Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. "The temptation is clear," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. "What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now." Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. "It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit," Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. "And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action." The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. "President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden - wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently cites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces "an unusual and extraordinary threat" from abroad "to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States." In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers - including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited - that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. "Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges," said John Yoo , who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. "Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act." Trump, Yoo said, "has just elevated it to another level." Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. "We believe - and we're right - that we are in an emergency," Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax . "You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies," Vance said. "I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain." Vance continued, "These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency." Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. "He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a "path toward autocracy and suppression." Economic Times WhatsApp channel )

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store