'Article 142 not born yesterday': Abhishek Singhvi counters V-P Dhankhar on 'nuclear missile against democratic forces' remark

Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi. (PTI Photo)

Congress Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi, one of the counsels representing petitioners challenging provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act in the Supreme Court, on Friday said he disagrees with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar remarks on the use of Article 142 of the Supreme Court.

In a no-holds-barred critique of the judiciary on Thursday, the Vice President termed Article 142 as a "nuclear missile against democratic forces" that remains available to the judiciary 24x7" and called for a comprehensive overhaul of the practices of constitutional interpretation in the country.

Dhankhar's specific reference was to the top court's recent order directing presidential action on Bills referred to her by state Governors, ruling that the President must decide on such Bills within a three-month timeframe. Dhankhar was critical of the top court's excessive reliance on Article 142 of the Constitution.

In an interview to The Indian Express, Singhvi said Article 142 has an old lineage going back to jurisprudence over the last 50 years. "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. Secondly, it was Dr Ambedkar and the framers who thought it fit to trust our Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone with this special power. Thirdly, all the jurisprudence puts very strong self-imposed limitations by the Supreme Court upon itself in the exercise of Article 142," Singhvi said.

Singhvi further defended the Supreme Court's April 8 order in a case involving the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor RN Ravi where it invoked Article 142 to deem all Bills cleared from the date they were presented to the Governor after being passed by the Assembly for the 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 argued.

The senior advocate further argued that no draftsman, Assembly, or even Dr BR Ambedkar ever dreamt that a Governor would keep Bills spending for over a year; would not give assent to them after a second referral back by the state government, would not send them for presidential approval in the first round, but "to delay matters" further would send it for presidential approval after a second referral of the state government and give no reasons whatsoever to hold up bills within the domain of exclusive state competence.

"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," he added.

Singhvi further said that the criticism of part of the judgment dealing with the President were "misplaced", pointing out that the court was laying down Constitutional principles and though there are differences in the two offices of Governor and President on the issue of assent to Bills, the structure and language of the Constitution are virtually identical for both President and Governor.

"If time limits for Governors can be imposed by the court, there is no reason why the same should not apply to the President. It is but obvious that the second question que Governors does not and will not arise. que the president, namely, reference to the president, nor has the court attempted to deal with that que the president," he added.

Article 142 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court far-reaching powers to pass any order necessary to ensure “complete justice” in a case before it. It allows the SC to override existing laws or fill legal gaps in order to comprehensively resolve a dispute. It can be used to issue directions, enforce decrees, compel production of documents, or even punish for contempt.