When top judges say democracy is at stake, media focus on Sunny Leone

Bantwal, Apr 16: A fatal pothole on a local road has claimed the life of a young community leader, sending shockwaves through the Bantwal region. Melroy D’Sa (25), president of the Thodambila Unit of the Indian Catholic Youth Movement (ICYM), died in a tragic bike accident late Tuesday night.

Melroy was reportedly riding his motorcycle when he lost control after hitting a pothole. Locals who witnessed the incident rushed him to a nearby hospital, but despite swift medical attention, he could not be saved.

A beloved figure in youth circles, Melroy was known for his leadership, vibrant spirit, and active involvement in community service across the Bantwal deanery. Many had seen him as a rising leader with a bright future.

The ICYM Central Council expressed profound grief over the loss, paying tribute to Melroy’s dedication to youth empowerment and his unwavering commitment to social causes. His untimely death has left a deep void in the community he passionately served.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Tesla CEO Elon Musk held a telephonic conversation on Friday, discussing the vast potential for collaboration in the fields of technology and innovation. During the call, PM Modi reiterated India’s commitment to deepening its partnership with the United States in these sectors.

In a post on X, PM Modi shared, “Spoke to @elonmusk and talked about various issues, including the topics we covered during our meeting in Washington, DC, earlier this year. We discussed the immense potential for collaboration in the areas of technology and innovation. India remains committed to advancing our partnerships with the US in these domains.”

The two leaders had previously met in February at Blair House in Washington, DC. Their discussions focused on enhancing cooperation between Indian and US entities in innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development.

They also explored opportunities to strengthen collaboration in emerging technologies, entrepreneurship, and good governance. Elon Musk, who also heads the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was accompanied by three of his children during the February meeting.

In a statement, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said, “The Prime Minister and Mr. Musk discussed strengthening collaboration between Indian and US entities in innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development. Their discussion also touched on opportunities to deepen cooperation in emerging technologies, entrepreneurship, and good governance.”

PM Modi also took to X to reflect on their earlier in-person meeting, saying, “Had a very good meeting with @elonmusk in Washington DC. We discussed various issues, including those he is passionate about, such as space, mobility, technology, and innovation. I also spoke about India’s reform efforts and the vision of ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance.’”

He added, “It was also a delight to meet Mr. @elonmusk’s family and to talk about a wide range of subjects!”

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.