Dhankhar’s comments on judiciary: Congress cites Naidu’s 2020 remarks that Constitution is supreme

Escalating its attack over Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s comments on the judiciary, the Congress on Friday cited his predecessor M Venkaiah Naidu’s remarks in 2020 in which he had stated that none of the three organs of the state can claim to be supreme as only the Constitution is supreme.

Vice President Dhankhar on Wednesday had said “one-upmanship and public posturing” from judicial platforms is not good and these institutions must know how to conduct themselves.

Dhankhar’s virtual censure of the judiciary had come following the apex court’s remarks on the issue of the collegium system.

Stepping up the party’s attack over the issue, Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh tweeted, “Mr.

Chidambaram has pointedly countered the Vice President’s assault on the judiciary by saying the Constitution and not Parliament is supreme.

Just a year ago, Mr.Dhankar’s predecessor Venkaiah Naidu-garu had said exactly what Mr. Chidambaram has.

” Ramesh tagged an official release of Naidu’s remarks at the inaugural session of the 80th All India Conference of Presiding Officers at Kevadia, Gujarat, in November 2020.

In his remarks, Naidu had said none of the three organs of the ‘state’ can claim to be supreme as only the Constitution is supreme and the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are bound to work within the respective domains as defined in the Constitution.

Chidambaram on Wednesday had said Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar is wrong when he says that Parliament is supreme as it is the Constitution that is supreme.

The “basic structure” doctrine was evolved in order to prevent a majoritarian-driven assault on the foundational principles of the Constitution, the former Union minister had said.

Addressing the 83rd All India Presiding Officers Conference in Jaipur, Dhankar had again criticised the scrapping of the NJAC Act in 2015 and questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case verdict, saying it set a wrong precedent and that he disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling that Parliament can amend the Constitution but not its basic structure.