Latest news with #NJAC)Act
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Outspoken Jagdeep Dhankhar questioned Judiciary on overreach, lack of accountability
Jagdeep Dhankhar, known for his outspoken stance as vice president, surprisingly resigned citing health reasons. He frequently criticized the Judiciary on issues like corruption and overreach, particularly after cash was discovered at Justice Varma's residence. Dhankhar questioned the striking down of the NJAC Act and the Judiciary's role, viewing himself as a defender of the system. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads As vice president, Jagdeep Dhankhar often waded into contentious matters of the day, hogging headlines and setting the agenda. But one area that was at the receiving end of his punches more than others was the Judiciary over a gamut of issues ranging from alleged corruption to its a surprise move, Dhankhar stepped down as the vice president on Monday evening citing health cash discovery row at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma here in March had given Dhankhar a fresh handle to target the higher judiciary on the issue of corruption and alleged lack of he questioned the courts and its various decisions, Dhankhar described himself as the "foot soldier" of the Judiciary as he was part of the system as a also hit out at "forces with pernicious agenda" out to target institutions, including the Judiciary in his public several of his speeches, as vice president, he questioned the Supreme Court for striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act which sought to overturn the present collegium system. He had wondered how the top court could strike down a law passed with near unanimity by both Houses of had also hit out at MPs for not speaking against the Supreme Court had lamented that there was "no whisper" in Parliament after the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act and described it as "too serious an issue".He had also 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 strong words to the Judiciary came 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 had the discovery of half-burnt wads of cash at Justice Varma's residence, he questioned the absence of an FIR in the case and dubbed the three-member in-house committee formed by the then chief justice of India to investigate the case said the panel's findings were without proper investigative tools which a probe agency has.
Mint
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Jagdeep Dhankhar, the most controversial constitutional VP in post-1947 India
The Constitution of India's description of the Vice President as an "ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha" who 'acts as President when the latter is unable to discharge his functions due to absence, illness or any other cause', is a rather innocuous description of the persona of Jagdeep Dhankhar. Rarely, if ever, has a constitutional position been as controversial as this once-centrist politician from Rajasthan, whose surprise resignation on `health' grounds made him the first Vice President to quit for reasons other than contesting presidential polls or taking over as President after winning elections. While disagreements between the Opposition and the Vice-President in his capacity as the Rajya Sabha Chairman is commonplace in India's parliamentary politics, what Dhankhar did was to elevate this rivalry to the level of outright hostility. Elected Vice-President in August 2022, his term as the Rajya Sabha Chairman began on a controversial note during the Winter Session that year as he called the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act a 'glaring instance' of 'severe compromise' of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the 'mandate of the people'. Since then, there have been several instances when he and Opposition MPs clashed on a regular basis. In August 2023, Dhankhar told the Opposition that he 'could not and would not' direct Prime Minister Narendra Modi to be present in the House as it was the PM's prerogative, like any other MP, to come to Parliament. He made this statement as the Opposition benches continued to demand the PM's presence in the Rajya Sabha to address them on the issue of violence in Manipur. Ties between the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Opposition hit a low during the Winter Session of 2023 when 146 MPs were suspended from both Houses of Parliament, mostly over their demand for Union Home Minister Amit Shah's statement on a Parliament security breach, followed by a discussion on the matter. It was the highest-ever number of suspensions in a Parliament session. For the BJP, Dhankhar did not serve the purpose he was elected for. Says political analyst Amitabh Tewari: "For the BJP, Dhankhar did not serve the purpose he was elected for. Despite his farmer background, he was unable to influence agitators. He became too abrasive and partisan in the House.' In December 2024, Dhankhar became the first person holding one of the top two constitutional posts in the country to face the prospect of impeachment as the Opposition submitted a notice to move a no-confidence motion against him, which was rejected. Things reached a stage when the Rajya Sabha became a virtual.
Indian Express
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
NJAC Act to Basic Structure doctrine, Jagdeep Dhankhar kept asking questions of the Supreme Court during his tenure
Jagdeep Dhankhar's term as Vice-President, cut short by his surprise resignation from the constitutional post late Monday evening, was marked by controversy as he spoke up against not just the Opposition but also the judiciary on multiple occasions. This followed his term as West Bengal Governor, where he had several run-ins with the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government. In 2022, his term as the Rajya Sabha Chairman began on a controversial note during the Winter Session as he called the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act a 'glaring instance' of 'severe compromise' of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the 'mandate of the people'. He said Parliament, being the custodian of the 'ordainment of the people', was duty-bound to 'address the issue' and expressed confidence that 'it will do so'. The remarks, made in the House on December 7, were a reiteration of what he had said a week earlier. Dhankhar also said it was time for 'all constitutional institutions to reflect and give quietus to public display of adversarially challenging stance/trading or exchange of advisories emanating from these platforms'. The comments came at a time when the Opposition was planning to seek a discussion in the House on alleged government interference in the functioning of constitutional bodies, including a faceoff with the judiciary. A month earlier, then Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had said the Collegium system of appointing judges was 'opaque' and 'not accountable' and 'alien' to the Constitution. His remarks had attracted the displeasure of the Supreme Court. Comments on Basic Structure doctrine A month later, on January 11, 2023, he rekindled the debate on the doctrine of separation of powers, citing the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case in which it ruled Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution but not its basic structure. Dhankhar, in his inaugural address at the 83rd All-India Presiding Officers Conference in Jaipur, said it would be difficult to answer the question, 'Are we a democratic nation?' 'In a democratic society, the basic of any basic structure is supremacy of the people, sovereignty of the people, sovereignty of Parliament. Executive thrives on the sovereignty of Parliament. Legislatures and Parliament decide who will be the Chief Minister, who will be the Prime Minister. The ultimate power is with the Legislature. The Legislature decides who will be in other institutions. In such a situation, all Constitutional institutions – the Legislative, Executive, Judiciary – are required to be within their limits,' he said. 'In 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court gave the idea of basic structure saying that Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure. With due respect to the Judiciary, I cannot subscribe to this,' Dhankhar said. Reviving the NJAC debate This March, amid the row over the discovery of wads of currency notes at the New Delhi home of High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, Dhankhar again revived the NJAC debate. He said 'things would have been different' if the Supreme Court had not struck down the mechanism for judicial appointments. His remarks on March 25 came on a day a three-member committee constituted by the Supreme Court began its inquiry into the conduct of Justice Varma and visited his residence. The NJAC Act had proposed that appointment of judges be done by a six-member body, headed by the Chief Justice of India, and comprising two most senior SC judges, the Union Law Minister and two 'eminent' persons. The two eminent persons were to be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI and the leader of the largest Opposition party in Lok Sabha. However, the Supreme Court was of the view that there was no question of accepting an alternative procedure which did not ensure primacy of the judiciary in the matter of selection and appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. On the judiciary and the President On April 22, Dhankhar minced no words in questioning the judiciary soon after the Supreme Court imposed a three-month time limit on the President and governors to give their assent to a Bill. At a gathering at a Delhi University event to commemorate 75 years of the Constitution, Dhankhar said, 'There is no visualisation in the Constitution of any authority above Parliament … elected representatives … They are the ultimate masters as to what (the) Constitution content will be.' Dhankhar also said that India cannot have a situation where the judiciary directs the President. '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,' he said the same day in his address to the sixth batch of the Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice President's Enclave.
Indian Express
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Jagdeep Dhankhar draws curtains on a stormy Rajya Sabha run
Jagdeep Dhankhar, who resigned as the Vice-President late on Monday citing his health, is no stranger to disagreements with the Opposition. Dhankhar was elected Vice-President in August 2022 and his term as the Rajya Sabha Chairman began on a controversial note during the Winter Session that year as he called the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act a 'glaring instance' of 'severe compromise' of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the 'mandate of the people'. Since then, there have been several instances when he and Opposition MPs have not seen eye to eye. In August 2023, Dhankhar told the Opposition that he 'could not and would not' direct Prime Minister Narendra Modi to be present in the House as it was the PM's prerogative like any other MP to come to Parliament. He made this statement as the Opposition benches continued to demand the PM's presence in the Rajya Sabha to address them on the issue of violence in Manipur. The ties between the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Opposition hit a low during the Winter Session last year when 146 MPs were suspended from both Houses of Parliament, mostly over their demand for Union Home Minister Amit Shah's statement on a Parliament security breach, followed by a discussion on the matter. It was the highest-ever number of suspensions in a Parliament session. As the proceedings came to a halt, Dhankhar wrote to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Upper House, about the 'acrimony and disruptions'. Kharge replied saying that 'he was firmly in favour of dialogue and discussion'. In his letter, Dhankhar highlighted that the latter's 'refusal to meet him to resolve the political stalemate' was 'not in sync with parliamentary practices' and sought a meeting. Kharge had declined Dhankhar's invitation and in a letter said that the mass suspension of MPs was 'premeditated' and 'weaponised' by the ruling party to sabotage parliamentary practices. In June 2024, Dhankhar courted controversy after Kharge entered the Well of House during a protest against paper leaks, with Dhankhar saying this was the first time that a LoP had done such a thing and called it a 'stain' on Parliament. Kharge responded by saying he was trying to grab the attention of the Chairman who was looking towards the Treasury benches. In July 2024, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal questioned the manner in which the Upper House was being run by Dhankhar and claimed that in no country the presiding officer of a House 'frequently interrupts' members during their speeches. The same month, Dhankhar said the RSS has 'unimpeachable credentials' and Constitutional rights to contribute to the development of the nation. 'RSS is an organisation which is a global think tank of the highest order…,' he said in the House while responding to a comment from Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman that the government's main criterion for appointments was if a person belongs to the RSS. In September 2024, in an apparent reference to Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi, Dhankhar, without naming him, said nothing was more condemnable than someone holding a Constitutional post becoming 'part of enemies of the nation'. Dhankhar was speaking at Parliament to the third batch of the Rajya Sabha internship programme. During his visit to the United States that week, Gandhi said 'love, respect, and humility' were missing from Indian politics. In December last year, Dhankhar became the first person holding one of the top two constitutional posts to face the prospect of impeachment as the Opposition submitted a notice to move a no-confidence motion against him, a first in Indian Parliamentary history. However, after 60 INDIA bloc MPs gave a notice in the Rajya Sabha to bring a resolution for removal of Dhankhar, Deputy Chairman Harivansh rejected it, saying the petition was 'severely flawed', does not adhere to the requirement of 14 days' notice period and was 'drawn in haste and hurry' to 'mar the reputation' of Dhankhar and to 'damage the constitutional institution'. Earlier this year, in April, after the Supreme Court ruling set a three-month timeline for the President to decide on Bills referred by Governors of states, Dhankhar had said that India cannot have a situation where the judiciary directs the President. While the Supreme Court ruling addressed the long-running dispute between Governors and Opposition-ruled state governments, Dhankhar added that his worries are at the 'very highest level' and asked, 'There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country?' Most recently, in June, Dhankhar waded into the political debate over the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, referring to their addition to the Constitution by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency as 'sacrilege to the spirit of sanatan'. 'These words have been added as nasoor (festering wound). These words will create upheaval. Addition of these words in the Preamble during the Emergency signal betrayal of the mindset of the framers of the Constitution,' he said. Before he was elected Vice-President, Dhankhar served as the Governor of West Bengal when he had several run-ins with the government of Mamata Banerjee and became a vocal critic of the state administration. From the law and order situation in the state and post-poll violence to corruption accusations, alleged lapses in bureaucracy and the appointment of vice-chancellors in state universities, Dhankhar never shied away from criticising the government, which accused him of sitting on important BIlls. The situation took a turn for the worse when the state government in 2022 replaced the Governor with the CM as chancellor of state universities. His relationship with Mamata Banerjee became so acrimonious that the CM even blocked Dhankhar on social media. His relationship with Speaker Biman Banerjee was no less bitter, with the Speaker in 2021 complaining to then President Ram Nath Kovind about Dhankhar allegedly interfering in matters of the government. Born into a farmer's family at Kithana village in Jhunjhunu district in 1951, Dhankhar studied at a local government school before going to Sainik school in Chittorgarh. He studied law at the University of Rajasthan and became a professional lawyer, going on to serve as the president of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association. Dhankhar started his political journey with the Janata Dal and in 1989, he was elected to the Lok Sabha from Jhunjhunu. After that, he moved to state politics and was elected to the Rajasthan Assembly in 1993 from Kishangarh on a Congress ticket. He again tried his luck in the Lok Sabha elections in 1998 but lost from Jhunjhunu. Starting that year, Dhankhar served as a full-time senior advocate in the Supreme Court and in 2003 switched to the BJP. He advised the party on important legal matters.
Mint
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
India's judicial rebirth: Let's fix how we select and remove judges
India's judiciary, a public institution, is working under a secretive collegium system and a complex removal process which doesn't inspire public trust. Scandals like Justice Yashwant Varma's 2025 burnt currency note allegations fuel distrust. A Judicial Service Commission (JSC), inspired by South Africa and Kenya's transparent models, could regulate appointments and removals with oversight by the Rajya Sabha. We propose a bold JSC to end the 'uncle judge syndrome' and also rid India's judiciary of bad judges to deliver justice reliably. Also Read: Call of justice: India should reform its process for the removal of judges India's flawed systems: The current collegium for judge selection, established through the 'Judges Cases' (1981-1998), redefined 'consultation" under the Constitution's Article 124 as 'concurrence," giving judges control over appointments to counter Emergency-era (1975-77) executive overreach. A 2015 Supreme Court ruling struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which proposed a selection panel that would include the Chief Justice of India (CJI), law minister, judges and eminent persons, preserving judicial primacy. Justice Chelameswar's 2015 dissent highlighted the collegium's opacity: no records, irregular meetings and leaks. Judge removal is nearly impossible under Articles 124(4) and 218, requiring a motion moved by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, an inquiry and a two-thirds majority in both Houses for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity." Only two judges—V. Ramaswami and Soumitra Sen—have faced such a motion in India so far and both resigned before the process was completed. Also Read: The judiciary cannot turn into a haven for the corrupt Cost of inaction: The collegium's secrecy breeds familiarity, often called the 'uncle judge syndrome.' A 2012 study by George Gadbois found candidates with judicial family ties 37% more likely to be appointed. This lack of diversity alienates litigants, like a rural woman seeking justice for domestic abuse or a Dalit entrepreneur fighting business discrimination. These individuals, often from marginalized communities, face systemic barriers and may feel that judges—mostly urban upper-caste men—are unable to relate to their struggles, leading to doubts over fairness. The 2019 CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal ruling mandated access to collegium decisions under India's Right to Information, but compliance has been weak. From the 2012 cash-for-bail scandal to recent allegations, it is clear that corruption persists. India's long-drawn judge removal process protects wrongdoers, undermining the rule of law. Also Read: A judiciary that refrains from judicial overreach can better serve the cause of justice Let's consider South Africa's JSC. How does it function? Under Section 178 of its 1996 Constitution, the JSC has 23 members: the chief justice, members of parliament, lawyers, academics and presidential nominees, with public nominations for civil society inputs. It advertises vacancies, shortlists candidates and conducts public interviews, recommending appointees based on merit and diversity (Section 174). By 2022, 45% of judges were South African by ethnic ancestry. Removals start with the Judicial Conduct Committee, which handles minor complaints and issues warnings. Serious cases go to a Judicial Conduct Tribunal, which investigates and recommends removal to the JSC. The JSC's decision is final, subject to oversight by a parliamentary committee. Consider a specific case, that of South African judge, John Hlophe (2008-2024). In 2008, the Constitutional Court accused Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe of trying to influence a case involving former President Jacob Zuma. Civil society groups, including Freedom Under Law, filed complaints with the JSC, demanding action. The JCC initially cleared Hlophe, but a public outcry led to further scrutiny. In 2020, Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath flagged Hlophe's misconduct, including racist remarks. After a tribunal investigation, the JSC recommended his removal in 2024, approved by a parliamentary committee. Also Read: Complete justice: Article 142 should be invoked only in truly rare cases Accountability lessons: Kenya too has a similar structure and also follows Common Law principles like South Africa and India. Other democracies show how to hold judges accountable without a gridlock. In the US, judges face removal for misconduct, with its Congress and civil society ensuring transparency. Germany's parliament and courts, with public inputs, remove judges who violate fundamental ethical principles. The UK uses parliamentary panels, informed by civil society, to address judicial missteps. Nigeria's judicial council, backed by legislative oversight and public advocacy, flags and removes corrupt judges. Unlike India's complex removal process, these systems empower elected representatives and citizens to act decisively, balancing judicial independence with accountability and offering India a blueprint. India needs a judicial service commission: A JSC modelled on South Africa and Kenya could transform India's system. Led by the CJI, it should include judges, the law minister, academics and civil society representatives to ensure diverse perspectives. The JSC should advertise vacancies, shortlist candidates via public interviews and recommend appointees. Civil society could nominate candidates and offer feedback. For removals, the JSC would investigate complaints (including citizen petitions), refer serious cases to a tribunal and recommend removals to the President, with oversight by the relevant Rajya Sabha parliamentary standing committee to ensure fairness and prevent politicization. This panel should review JSC processes, hold public hearings and report to Parliament, thus ensuring transparency. Critics fear politicization, but transparency and civil society involvement would mitigate this risk. Justice Louis Brandeis' truism, 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant," would apply. A judiciary for all: India's judiciary must reflect its social diversity and earn trust. Adopting South Africa and Kenya's JSC models can reform appointments and removals. The judiciary's black robes must not conceal corruption or elitism. A JSC, with stakeholders like civil society, can end the 'uncle judge syndrome,' let in sunlight and ensure a judiciary that upholds the rule of law for every Indian. The authors are, respectively, vice president of Pune International Centre and secretary general of CUTS International.
