\n

\u2018Judiciary and democracy\u2019<\/p>\n

The Vice-President of India\u2019s strong lines against the Supreme Court of India are unwarranted as what the Court has done is strictly according to the provisions of the Constitution. The timelines actually apply to the chain after the Assembly has made its considered decision. <\/p>\n

V. Padmanabhan, <\/p>\n

Bengaluru <\/p>\n

The use of phrases such as \u201csuper parliament\u201d and \u201cfiring a nuclear missile against democratic forces\u201d are unsettling. There can always be a healthy debate on whether the scope of Article 142 can be extended to giving such a direction to the President of India. The overall issue is best left to the Union of India to sort out instead of having examples of some leaders transgressing the constitutional boundaries of their office. <\/p>\n

S.K. Choudhury, <\/p>\n

Bengaluru <\/p>\n

While the call for judicial accountability is valid in a democratic framework, equating a constitutional provision with a weapon of mass destruction is alarming and inappropriate. Article 142 empowers the Court to deliver complete justice, especially in situations where existing laws may fall short. Constructive criticism aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability within the judiciary is essential. However, such discourse must be conducted with utmost respect for the institution\u2019s role in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. <\/p>\n

Vikas Khatri, <\/p>\n

Jalore, Rajasthan <\/p>\n