Cong MP Singhvi defends SC's Article 142 power after VP Dhankhar's remarks

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had, on Thursday, called Article 142 a "nuclear missile against democratic forces that remains available to the judiciary 24x7"

Congress Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi has strongly disagreed with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142. Singhvi, who is one of the lawyers challenging parts of the Waqf (Amendment) Act in the Supreme Court, defended the Court’s powers and recent decisions.

 

Vice President Dhankhar had, on Thursday, called Article 142 a “nuclear missile against democratic forces that remains available to the judiciary 24x7”. He said the way the Constitution is being interpreted needs to be completely reviewed. Dhankar made these remarks during his address to the 6th batch of Rajya Sabha interns. 

 

 

His comments came after the Supreme Court recently said that the President must take a decision within three months on state Bills sent to her by Governors. The Court used Article 142 to issue this direction. Dhankhar felt the top court was relying too much on Article 142. 

Article 142 is not something new or unusual

 

Singhvi said Article 142 is not something new or unusual. “Article 142 was not born yesterday nor used the day before. It has a respectable old lineage going back to jurisprudence of the widest kind over the last 50 years,” he told The Indian Express.

 

He also reminded that it was BR Ambedkar and the Constitution’s framers who gave this special power to the Supreme Court. “All the jurisprudence puts very strong self-imposed limitations by the Supreme Court upon itself in the exercise of Article 142,” he added.

 

Tamil Nadu government vs Governor RN Ravi

 

Singhvi also spoke about the Court’s order in the case between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi, where the Court used Article 142 to say that the Bills should be considered cleared from the day they were sent to the Governor a second time.

 

“When Governors specially appointed to Opposition states by a Central government, which consciously wants to blow all concepts of federalism to the sky, start behaving more like agents taking instructions from the Centre rather than as independent post holders, how is the use of Article 142 wrong or bad?” Singhvi asked. 

 

He also said that no one, not even Ambedkar, would have imagined that a Governor would sit on Bills for over a year without giving any reason, or send them to the President only to delay things.

 

“Ambedkar presumed good sense, high morality and exclusion of ulterior considerations. When they come in, the ultimate custodian of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court, must step in. And I strongly endorse the judgment,” Singhvi said.

 

He also dismissed criticism of the Court’s comments regarding the President’s role in approving Bills. Singhvi said the Constitution uses the same kind of language for both the President and Governors when it comes to Bill assent. “If time limits for Governors can be imposed by the court, there is no reason why the same should not apply to the President,” he said.