Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently stirred national debate by referring to Article 142 of the Indian Constitution as a "nuclear missile" in the context of democracy. His strong analogy has reignited discussions about the role of the judiciary and the extent of its powers, particularly how Article 142 is applied by the Supreme Court of India.
Article 142 grants the Supreme Court wide-ranging authority to "pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it." This unique constitutional provision is often cited in landmark cases to ensure justice is served, even if there is no direct legal provision available. It enables the Court to transcend procedural limitations in exceptional cases.
However, Vice President Dhankhar, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, expressed concern about the growing use of Article 142 and what he views as judicial overreach. Speaking at a recent public event, Dhankhar remarked, "Article 142 is a nuclear missile and must be used sparingly. Excessive use can erode the democratic essence of our governance."
His remarks have been seen as a caution to the judiciary, suggesting that frequent use of this powerful article might undermine the authority of the legislature, which represents the will of the people. Dhankhar’s comment reflects an ongoing tension between different pillars of democracy—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—each with their defined roles under the Constitution.
Critics of Dhankhar’s statement argue that Article 142 has been essential in delivering justice in high-stakes cases where legislative gaps exist. Supporters, however, believe his concerns are valid and echo the need for judicial restraint to preserve the constitutional balance of power.
Legal experts have weighed in with mixed reactions. Some point to landmark judgments like the Ayodhya verdict, environmental orders, or bans on certain social practices as examples where Article 142 was instrumental in achieving justice. Others argue that repeated and unchecked use of the article could lead to judiciary stepping into the domain of policymaking, which should be the prerogative of the Parliament.
Conclusion:
Vice President Dhankhar’s remarks on Article 142 underline an important and evolving debate in Indian democracy—the fine line between judicial activism and overreach. While Article 142 remains a powerful tool to deliver justice, questions around its use, accountability, and constitutional limits will continue to shape the relationship between India’s judiciary and legislature in the years to come.
