While the Supreme Court of India is hearing a petition seeking to include the Chief Justice of India in the selection committee for the Election Commission, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday questioned how the judiciary can be involved in executive appointments. He said while earlier the executive yielded to the inclusion of judges in executive functions, it was time to revisit the norms.
Speaking at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, Dhankhar said that such a system should not exist in a democracy like India. He wondered how the Chief Justice of India participate in the selection of the CBI director, even by “statutory prescription”.
The vice president said, “To stir your minds, how can in a country like ours or in any democracy, by statutory prescription, Chief Justice of India participates in the selection of the CBI director! Can there be any legal rationale for it? I can appreciate that the statutory prescription took shape because the Executive of the day has yielded to a judicial verdict. But time has come to revisit.”
VIDEO | Addressing a gathering at National Judicial Academy in Madhya Pradesh's Bhopal, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar (@VPIndia) said: "To stir your minds, how can in a country like ours or in any democracy, by statutory prescription, Chief Justice of India participates in the… pic.twitter.com/2BUvcBfp5O
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) February 14, 2025
Jagdeep Dhankhar further said, “This surely does not merge with democracy. How can we involve Chief Justice of India with any executive appointment!”
In another significant comment, Dhankhar said that while the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution, there can be no “arrogation of authority” under the guise of interpretation. The essence and spirit which the founding fathers had in mind under Article 145(3) must be respected, the VP said.
He added that when the number Supreme Court judges was eight, the size of constitutional bench was five. Now the number SC judges have increased fourfold, but the constitution bench strength remains five. He said that that now the constitutional bench strength should be increased, as originally the constitution bench comprised majority of total judges.
He said, “When the strength of the Supreme Court was eight judges, under Article 145(3), there was a stipulation that interpretation of the Constitution will be by a bench of five judges or more. Please note, when this strength was eight, it was five. And the Constitution allows the highest court of the land to interpret the Constitution. If I analyze arithmetically, they were very sure the interpretation will be by majority of judges, because the strength then was eight. That five stands as it is. And the number (of total judges) is more than fourfold.”
