New Delhi: Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal criticized Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday for his remarks questioning the judiciary's timeline for presidential decisions, labeling them as 'unconstitutional.' Sibal expressed that he had never witnessed a Rajya Sabha chairman making such politically charged statements.

Following Dhankhar's pointed comments about the judiciary, Sibal emphasized that both the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman should maintain neutrality between the ruling party and the opposition, asserting they cannot act as 'party spokespersons.'

Sibal stated, 'It is well understood that the Speaker's role is impartial. They represent the House, not a single party, and only vote in case of a tie. The same principle applies to the upper house.'

He added, 'All statements must reflect this neutrality. No Speaker should serve as a party's spokesperson. If it appears otherwise, it undermines the dignity of the position.'

Dhankhar had previously criticized the judiciary for allegedly acting as a 'super Parliament' and questioned its authority to impose timelines on presidential actions. He remarked that the Supreme Court should not wield such power over democratic processes.

During a speech to Rajya Sabha interns, Dhankhar expressed concerns about judges taking on legislative and executive roles without accountability, describing Article 142, which grants extensive powers to the Supreme Court, as a 'nuclear missile' against democratic institutions.

In response, Sibal argued that such statements could imply that the judiciary is being reprimanded, which he deemed unconstitutional and detrimental to its independence. He stressed that the judiciary must be defended by the polity, especially when it cannot defend itself against executive attacks.

Sibal remarked, 'The independence of the judiciary is essential for democracy. What is happening is unconstitutional.' He expressed surprise and disappointment at Dhankhar's comments, noting that judicial institutions like the High Courts and Supreme Court are trusted by the public.

He pointed out that when government officials disagree with judicial decisions, they often accuse the judiciary of overstepping its bounds, while simultaneously praising decisions that align with their views.

Sibal referenced the constitutional role of the President, stating that the President acts on the advice of the council of ministers, and questioned who is actually limiting the President's powers.

He raised concerns about the potential delay caused by governors sitting on important bills, suggesting that this could infringe upon legislative supremacy.

Sibal concluded by stating that if there are issues with a judgment, the appropriate course of action would be to seek a review or an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court, rather than making inflammatory remarks.

He also criticized Dhankhar for not addressing contemporary issues while discussing historical events, implying a selective narrative that overlooks significant developments since 2014.

Sibal highlighted the slow process of impeachment motions against judges, questioning the efficiency of the system and emphasizing the need for timely judicial action.

He reiterated that if the executive fails to fulfill its responsibilities, the judiciary must step in to ensure justice.

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to issue orders for 'complete justice' in any case, a power that Sibal defended as a constitutional provision, not a governmental one.

Sibal also challenged Dhankhar's comments regarding the lack of an FIR related to the discovery of burnt cash at a High Court judge's residence, asserting that judicial processes should not be interfered with by political figures.

Recalling a landmark Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Indira Gandhi's election, Sibal noted that past decisions were accepted when they favored the ruling party, contrasting this with current criticisms of judicial decisions that do not align with government interests.