“When the judiciary begins to act like a super-legislature, it risks undermining the delicate balance of democracy. The power to do complete justice under Article 142 is not a licence to rewrite the Constitution," warned Fali S. Nariman, one of India’s foremost constitutional lawyers, critiquing expansive judicial interventions in cases like the BCCI reforms. This caution resonates deeply with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent remarks on judicial overreach, which have been unfairly dismissed by prominent editorial biases in Indian newspapers.

Cloaked in constitutional semantics, these critiques sideline legitimate questions about institutional balance by framing the Vice President as overstepping his role. The argument that he should remain a silent figurehead, confined to a “largely ceremonial" position, is not only constitutionally reductive—it is fundamentally anti-democratic. Dhankhar’s concerns demand a fair hearing, not reflexive dismissal.

At the core of the Vice President’s comments is a critical observation: the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has increasingly acted as a “super Parliament" by invoking Article 142 in ways that encroach upon the executive’s domain. This is not mere rhetoric. Constitutional scholars, former judges, and jurists have long echoed Nariman’s concerns. For example, in the BCCI reforms case, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the board’s governance structure—a task arguably beyond its judicial purview. Similarly, the 2015 NJAC........

© News18