VP Dhankhar explained that we cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India, and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There, it has to be five judges or more.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar openly criticised the Indian judiciary on Thursday (April 17) and called for constitutional reforms. VP Dhankhar proposed amending Article 145(3), which deals with the composition of the Bench to decide substantial questions of constitutional law. “We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India, and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There it has to be five judges or more,” he said.
VP Dhankhar said, “When Article 145(3) was there, the number of judges in the Supreme Court was eight, 5 out of 8, now 5 out of 30 and odd. But forget about it; the judges who issued a mandamus virtually to the President and presented a scenario that it would be the law of the land have forgotten the power of the Constitution. How can that combination of judges deal with something under Article 145(3) if preserved, it was then for five out of eight. We also need to make amends for that now. Five out of eight would mean interpretation will be by majority. Well, five constitutes more than the majority in eight. But leave that aside. Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24 x 7….”.
Dhankhar questioned ‘Why no FIR registered in burnt cash case matter?’
Dhankhar also questioned the lack of an FIR in the discovery of ‘wads of burnt cash case’ from the residence of a high court judge, wondering whether a category beyond law has secured immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court of India ordered an in-house probe into the alleged discovery of half-burnt wads of cash from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence after a fire on the night of Holi on March 14 (Friday). Justice Varma has now been repatriated from the Delhi High Court to his parent high court of Allahabad.
Dhankhar also questioned the legal standing of the three-judge panel carrying out an in-house probe into the matter. Referring to the case, he said every Indian is deeply concerned. “If the event had taken place at his (common man’s) house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart.”
No committee formed under any provision of ‘Constitution or law’: Dhankhar
Dhankhar said while a committee of three judges is probing the matter, an investigation is the domain of the executive and not the judiciary. He said the committee has not been set up under any provision of the Constitution or law. “And what can the committee do? The committee can at the most make a recommendation. Recommendation to whom? And for what? “The kind of mechanism we have for judges, the only action finally that can be taken is by Parliament (by way of removal of the judge),” he said. The committee report, Dhankhar said, “inherently lacks legal standing”.
“It is now over a month. Even if it is a can of worms, even if there are skeletons in the cupboard, (it’s) time to blow up the can, time for its lid to go out, and time for the cupboard to collapse. Let the worms and skeletons be in the public domain so that cleansing takes place,” Dhankhar said while addressing a group of Rajya Sabha interns. He said for seven days no one knew about the incident.
After the incident was confirmed by the top court, it became clear that something required to be investigated, he said. “Now the nation waits with bated breath. The nation is restive because one of our institutions, to which people have looked up always with the highest respect and deference, was put in the dock,” he said.
FIR can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including VP
Emphasising the significance of the rule of law, he said in a democracy purity of its criminal justice system defines its direction. He said no investigation under the law is in progress at the moment due to the lack of an FIR. “It is law of the land that every cognisable offence is required to be reported to the police and failure to do so, and failure to report a cognisable offence is a crime. Therefore, you all will be wondering why there has been no FIR,” he said. An FIR, Dhankhar pointed out, can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary including the vice president.
“One has only to activate the rule of law. No permission is required. But if it is judges, their category, FIR cannot be registered straightaway. It has to be approved by the concerned in the judiciary,” he said.
He underlined that the Constitution has accorded immunity from prosecution only to the president and the governors. “So how come a category beyond law has secured this immunity?” he wondered.
Jagdeep Dhankhar focuses on transparency in Indian judiciary
Underscoring the importance of transparency, the vice president referred to a decision of a Lokpal bench that it possessed the jurisdiction to investigate corruption complaints against high court judges. He said, taking a suo motu cognisance, the apex court stayed the order on the grounds of independence of the judiciary.
“This independence is not a protection. This independence is not some kind of impregnable cover against inquiry, investigation or probe. “Institutions thrive with transparency, with there being probe. The surest way to degenerate an institution or an individual is to give total guarantee there will be no inquiry, no scrutiny, no probe,” Dhankhar said.
. There, it has to be five judges or more.){kind=link}