New Delhi:  Rajya Sabha MP from Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), P. Wilson has questioned Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s denouncement of the judiciary – Dhankhar had termed Article 142, which gives powers to the Supreme Court a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”, – as one of convenience and pointed to the Ayodhya title dispute case in which the apex court had invoked Article 142.

“When it suits you, you will accept Article 142 and you'll hail the court. When it doesn't suit you, you will ridicule the courts,” said Wilson in an interview to The Wire.

Wilson represented Tamil Nadu in the “The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu” case in the Supreme Court, in which the apex court in a landmark judgement set a deadline for the President to decide on bills referred by Governors of states, and said that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s withholding of assent over 10 Bills and reserving them for the President’s assent was illegal.

In a sharp reaction to the judgement, Dhankhar on Thursday (April 17) derided the judiciary, calling it a "super parliament" and said that there cannot be a situation where the President of India is given directions by the judiciary.

Wilson said that the Vice President “had not been briefed” about the Union ministry of Home Affairs’ 2016 notification that prescribed a 3-month timeline within which bills from states needed to be cleared by the President in order to avoid delay, which had been drawn upon by the apex court in its order.

Wilson said that the Supreme Court had made it clear in its judgement that the President, Vice President and the Governor are all Constitutional appointees, and therefore it cannot be said that “the President is above the Constitution”.

‘Are we approving illegal actions of R.N. Ravi?’

On Thursday, Dhankhar, who also serves as the Rajya Sabha chairman said that “Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to judiciary 24×7”.

The extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution mandate the Supreme Court to do “complete justice” between the parties where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy. Wilson questioned how Article 142 can be called a “nuclear missile” and sought to know whether Ravi’s illegal actions are to be approved.

“I differ with the statement made by the chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Vice President. The Constitution divides the power between the executive, legislature, and judiciary and gives each one their role to play. Now, the problem here is the executive, namely the Governor is acting in defiance to the Constitution, to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and also in defiance to the wishes of the people as bills legislated by a competent legislative assembly are called an expression of the people,” he said.

Wilson said that the framers of the Constitution deliberated before inserting “as soon as possible” in Article 200 and made it very clear that bills have to be immediately cleared by the President or the Governor.

Also Read: Dhankhar’s Disgrace: When the Vice-President Becomes a Partisan Attack Dog, Democracy Bleeds

“That is why the words ‘as soon as possible’ are found in Article 200. Now, if one organ of the Constitution fails to act in accordance with the Constitution, the other organ namely the judiciary has to necessarily step in. So in our case the Governor's actions amounted to choking the assembly and arm twisting of the elected government which under the scheme of the constitution, is not acceptable. That's what the court said,” he said.

Wilson said that Article 142 was invoked by the court to do complete justice towards the facts and circumstances of the present case.

“Which is constitutionally permissible. Now, how do you say that it is a nuclear missile? This means, are we approving the illegal action of the governors like R.N. Ravi who sat over the bills indefinitely? Second, take the Ram Janmabhoomi case. The court has invoked Article 142 to grant reliefs,” he said.

“When it suits you, you will accept Article 142 and you'll hail the court. When it doesn't suit you, you will ridicule the courts.”

‘Vice President not briefed about MHA’s notification’

While Dhankhar in his statement said that there cannot be a situation in which the President of India is given directions, Wilson said that the Vice President had not been briefed about a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) by way of a office memorandum in 2016 that itself had prescribed a 3-month deadline within which bills from states needed to cleared by the President in order to avoid delay.

The Supreme Court has referred to the 2016 MHA notification in its judgement in the Tamil Nadu case.

“I think the honorable Vice President has not been briefed about the notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs that has been extracted in the judgment itself. They themselves have framed timelines for 3 months to act upon the bills sent by the state legislation. So you have your own guidelines to act upon this within 3 months," said Wilson.

"What do you say about the Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission reports? Do you mean to say that the governor or the president should not act on the bill at all? So what is wrong if the court interprets the Constitution and frames a timeline?” he added.

‘President not above Constitution’

Wilson said that neither the President, Vice President nor the Governor is above the Constitution and there have been several cases of mercy petitions decided by the President that have been set aside by the courts.

“You cannot say that the President is above the Constitution. That's the whole problem, the understanding of the Constitution, we see, all of them, including the governor, the vice president and president are none other than the appointees under the constitution. You only occupy the position and you have to do your duty as per the constitution," said Wilson.

"You don't have any unfettered extraordinary powers other than what the Constitution provides. You have powers, as described under the Constitution. Therefore, you can't say the president is above law. Maybe a president is the highest authority, commands the respect that command respect is given. Anyone who crosses the requirements as set out in the constitution, the court will step in, the court has to step in,” he added.

Wilson said that the Supreme Court’s judgement is landmark not only for non-BJP ruled states that have seen confrontations with the Governors but also for the BJP ruled states.

“The Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court is the final arbitrator of interpretation of constitutional law.  So this judgment certainly will help non-BJP ruled states. For that matter, I would even say that even the BJP rule states that the governors have to necessarily act within the timeline and their actions and conduct are subject to the judicial review,” he said.

‘Governor’s post unnecessary’

Wilson, who had also introduced three private members bills in the Rajya Sabha on the qualifications and disqualifications of the Governor, said that the DMK believes that the post of the Governor itself is “unnecessary”.

“I say in my bills that the bureaucrats or the judges should have a cooling period. The pre-retirement work gives them post-retirement benefits that should be avoided,” he said referring to the bills he had brought to the Rajya Sabha.

Wilson said that while the DMK as a party views the post of the Governor as unnecessary, the powers can be given to the Speaker of the Assembly who can give assent to bills under the State List and if the Speaker feels that the matter is under the Concurrent List can be sent to the President.

“The Governor’s post is an ornamental post. What is the budget for a Governor's office? Tell me the liability. You set aside 100 acres of land, employees, security-ultimately it is all borne out of taxpayers money. Why should we have an institution which doesn't work at all and is unnecessary?" said Wilson.

"In between the Governor and the legislature, the court has to come.  Can it happen for every bill, the popularly elected government spends a lot of time and money and energy in the courts fighting against the Governor?  This is not expected from constitutional appointees,” he added.

“So, therefore, DMK feels that the post of the Governor should be abolished, but I myself have brought a bill for the qualification, disqualification, and I've gone to the extent of even bringing another bill for appointments of the governor and if at all you want to retain the  Governor’s post you let it be the on the concurrence of the chief minister. I've even gone to the extent of bringing another bill to remove all the constitutional immunity under Article 361."

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.