Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday voiced concern over the Supreme Court's recent directive that sets a timeline for the President to approve state legislation, raising issues of judicial overreach and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Speaking to Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice-President's Enclave, Dhankhar questioned the judiciary's expanding role, stating that India did not envision a democracy where judges act as a "super Parliament." He pointed specifically to the Supreme Court's April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu versus Governor case, where the court directed the President regarding assent to state bills.

"Where is this direction to the President coming from? What precedent are we setting?" Dhankhar asked. He argued that the judiciary's role is confined to constitutional interpretation under Article 145(3), and questioned how a combination of judges could issue binding directions to the President, a constitutionally immune authority.

He expressed unease that the judiciary was operating without accountability, taking on roles beyond interpretation of the law and entering legislative and executive domains.

Referring to Article 142, Dhankhar described it as a tool increasingly used to override democratic norms, calling it a "nuclear missile" in the hands of the judiciary that lacks operational checks.

He also touched upon the reported recovery of cash from the residence of a Delhi High Court judge in March, noting the delay in public disclosure and subsequent developments. While the Supreme Court has initiated an internal probe and the judge has been de-rostered, Dhankhar questioned the lack of formal investigation.

"If such an incident had occurred in any other profession, immediate legal action would have followed," he said. He emphasized that the Constitution grants immunity from prosecution only to the President and Governors, and questioned how judges have come to enjoy a similar status without constitutional backing.

On the issue of judicial accountability, Dhankhar cited a January 27 order by a Lokpal bench led by a former Supreme Court judge, which called for a corruption probe against sitting high court judges. The Supreme Court stayed the probe on grounds of judicial independence. Dhankhar argued that independence does not imply immunity from investigation and accountability.

"Transparency sustains institutions. Shielding them from scrutiny only accelerates their erosion," he stated.

He also raised concerns about the process of appointing judges, saying Article 124 mandates appointments through consultation, and implied that current practices deviate from the original constitutional framework.

Reiterating the foundational principle of accountability in governance, Dhankhar stressed that while elected governments face scrutiny from both Parliament and the public, similar mechanisms are absent for the judiciary.

"If governance shifts to unelected bodies without oversight, how can questions be raised, and by whom?" he asked.