Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar Photo: | File Pic Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar Photo: | File Pic

A day after DY Chandrachud's remarks sparked controversy in a BBC interview, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday questioned how the CJI can participate in the selection of the CBI Director or any executive appointment.

VP Dhankar said, as quoted by PTI, "How can, in a country like ours or in any democracy, by statutory prescription, the Chief Justice of India participate in the selection of the CBI director? Can there be any legal rationale for it?"

Addressing a gathering at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal, he said, "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. This surely does not merge with democracy. How can we involve the Chief Justice of India with any executive appointment?"

Read More |Former CJI DY Chandrachud Faces Tough Questions In BCC Interview – Key Highlights

Selection of Chief Election Commissioner

The Vice President's statement comes just ahead of the meeting to select the next Chief Election Commissioner; the current Chief Election Commissioner, Rajiv Kumar, is retiring on February 18.

This will be the first selection after the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Service Conditions, and Tenure) Act, 2023, was passed.

play777 casino

However, the new law excludes the Chief Justice from the panel. Critics say the new law reflects excessive executive interference in appointments and is detrimental to the independence of the Election Commission.

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar is set to retire on February 18, and the selection committee to appoint his successor is likely to meet on Monday.

At present, the selection committee comprises Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The three will begin deliberations on the appointment from February 17, a day before the Supreme Court hears petitions against the new law.

Jagdeep Dhankhar Raises Concerns

Japan also began their campaign with a 5-5 draw against Korea but has since struggled to secure a win. They lost their second game 5-1 to India and followed that with a 2-1 defeat against Pakistan.

Jagdeep Dhankhar expressed concern over the contravention of the principle of separation of powers and said, "Executive governance by judicial decree is a constitutional paradox that the largest democracy on the planet cannot afford any longer. When institutions forget their bounds,phl63 casino democracy is remembered by the wounds this forgetfulness imparts," reported PTI.

He said that these institutions should operate within defined constitutional bounds while "maintaining cooperative dialogue, keeping national interest in mind."

"Executive governance reflecting the will of the people is constitutionally sanctified. Accountability is enforceable when executive roles are performed by an elected government. Governments are accountable to the legislature. And periodically accountable to the electorate. But if executive governance is arrogated or outsourced, the enforceability of accountability will not be there. Exclusively, governance lies with the government with utmost respect; any intervention from any source, in the country or outside, from the legislature or judiciary, is antithetical to constitutionalism and certainly not in consonance with the fundamental premise of democracy," he stated.

Referring to his stint as Parliamentary Affairs Minister in 1990, Dhankhar said the Supreme Court then had eight judges.

"More often than not, all the eight judges sat together (on a bench hearing a case)....When the strength of the Supreme Court was eight judges, under Article 145(3), there was a stipulation that interpretation of the Constitution would be by a bench of five judges or more," he said.

"Please note, when this strength was eight, it (the size of the constitutional bench) was five. And the Constitution allows the highest court of the land to interpret the Constitution," he added.

But under the guise of interpretation, there can be no "arrogation of authority," and the essence and spirit which the founding fathers had in mind under Article 145(3) must be respected, the vice president further said.

"If I analyse arithmetically, they were very sure the interpretation would be by a majority of judges because the (total) strength then was eight. That five stands as it is. And the number (of total judges) is more than fourfoldps88," he added.