Why should CJI have a say in CBI Director appointment? Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar

Vice-President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday continued with his criticism of the judiciary, this time denouncing the involvement of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the appointment of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act) provides for the constitution of the CBI and lays down the procedure for the appointment of CBI director. The DSPE Act, as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013, provides for the appointment of the CBI director by a high-powered selection committee. The committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India or any judge of Supreme Court nominated by him.

Dhankhar said that such an arrangement disrupts the constitutional scheme of separation of powers and undermines the authority of the elected government.

"I am aghast that a functionary of the executive like the CBI Director is appointed with the participation of the Chief Justice of India. Why should an executive appointment be made by anyone else other than the executive? Can this happen under the Constitution? Is this happening elsewhere in the world?" he asked.

The Vice-President was interacting with students at National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, where he raised serious constitutional concerns over judicial overreach and the erosion of institutional boundaries that separate the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.

He urged law students to write against the same.

“Use your pen," he said.

The interaction, attended by Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, State Law Minister P Rajeev, Higher Education Minister Dr R Bindu and NUALS Vice Chancellor Prof (Dr) GB Reddy, was part of a student engagement initiative.

During the event, the Vice-President offered students two writing challenges, one on the topic Why we celebrate Constitution Day on November 26, its origins, and its significance and the other on Constitutional Hathya Divas (June 25, 1975): Marking the Emergency of 1975.

He also promised that he would host the winning students at Parliament.

Dhankhar referred to William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar and said that the judiciary had its own 'Ides of March' on the night of March 14 and March 15, when a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered from a judge's official residence.

He emphasised that such an incident should have immediately triggered a criminal investigation; however, no FIR has been registered yet in the case.

He pointed out that the Central government was also unable to act because of a Supreme Court judgment from the early 1990s which bars executive action in such cases. Such incidents, if left unchecked, would affect the public's faith in the judiciary, he cautioned.

"The world looks at us as a mature democracy where there has to be rule of law,  equality before law which means every crime must be investigated. If the money is so huge in volume, we have to find out. Is it tainted money? What is the source of this money? How was it stocked in the official residence of a judge? It belonged to whom? I do hope an FIR will be registered. We must go to the root of the matter because for democracy, it matters that our judiciary, in whom the faith is unshakable, its very foundations have been shaken," Dhankhar said.

While affirming his support for judicial independence, Dhankhar also criticised the increasing trend of post-retirement appointments for judges, calling it a system of 'pick and choose'. He said that such appointments, when offered selectively, create avenues for patronage and lead to judicial impartiality.

Concluding his speech, he urged students to embrace constitutional values and encouraged them to engage in policy and nation building.

[Read Live Coverage]