Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has firmly responded to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent statement asserting the supremacy of Parliament, clarifying that in India’s constitutional framework, it is the Constitution—and not Parliament or the Executive—that holds ultimate authority.
Taking to social media platform X, Mr Sibal, who also serves as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, stated, “The law: Neither Parliament nor the Executive is supreme. The Constitution is supreme. The provisions of the Constitution are interpreted by the Supreme Court.
That's how this country has understood the law so far.” Though he did not name the Vice President directly, his remarks were seen as a direct counter to Mr Dhankhar’s statements.
Mr Sibal defended the Supreme Court’s recent judgments that have drawn criticism from some BJP leaders and the Vice President, describing them as consistent with constitutional values and motivated by national interest.
He reiterated the role of the judiciary in interpreting laws and upholding justice as enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court special powers to deliver complete justice in any matter.
This response comes shortly after Vice President Dhankhar, who also chairs the Rajya Sabha, repeated his belief that Parliament is supreme in the constitutional framework.
During his remarks, Mr Dhankhar expressed concern about a recent Supreme Court judgement in the Tamil Nadu case, which effectively set a timeline for the President and Governors to act on Bills returned by the legislature.
He questioned whether the judiciary should be allowed to direct the President, warning that Article 142 was being used as a "nuclear missile against democratic forces".
Mr Dhankhar, a former senior lawyer himself, argued that there is no provision in the Constitution that places any authority above Parliament.
He stressed that elected representatives are the ultimate custodians of the Constitution’s content and questioned the growing judicial oversight over legislative and executive actions.
A number of BJP leaders echoed Mr Dhankhar’s sentiments. MP Nishikant Dubey accused the judiciary of overstepping its mandate and claimed the Supreme Court was fuelling religious conflicts by taking selective positions in temple-mosque disputes.
He also objected to the judiciary setting deadlines for constitutional authorities like the President and Governors. Another BJP leader, Dinesh Sharma, said the President’s authority should not be challenged and described the head of state as “supreme”.
However, the BJP leadership was quick to distance itself from these controversial remarks. Party president JP Nadda clarified that the comments reflected personal views and not the party’s official position. “The BJP neither agrees with nor supports such statements. The BJP completely rejects these statements,” he said.
Opposition leaders, meanwhile, accused the ruling party of attempting to undermine judicial independence and pressurise the courts. The criticism has sparked a wider debate about the separation of powers and the independence of constitutional institutions in India.
In response to the growing controversy, senior Supreme Court judges have also voiced concern. Justice BR Gavai, who is set to take over as Chief Justice of India, noted recent criticisms suggesting the judiciary was encroaching on executive functions.
Justice Surya Kant, the third most senior judge in the apex court, remarked that while the judiciary faces attacks almost daily, it remains undeterred.
Top government sources have attempted to calm tensions, stating that the judiciary is a vital pillar of democracy and reaffirming the government's commitment to ensuring harmony among all branches of governance.
The official stance is that all institutions—Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary—are working in tandem towards building a developed India or “Viksit Bharat”.
Follow us
