Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar has reignited a debate concerning the process of prosecuting judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India. Speaking at a book launch on May 19, 2025, Dhankhar asserted that "the time has come to revisit" a Supreme Court judgment that mandates prior sanction before initiating prosecution against judges of the higher judiciary. He specifically referenced the 1991 K Veeraswami vs. Union of India case, a landmark ruling addressing the application of anti-corruption laws to judges, while emphasizing the importance of judicial independence.

Dhankhar's statement comes amidst controversy surrounding a recent case involving Justice Yahwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, who was transferred to Allahabad High Court in March after a large sum of cash was allegedly discovered at his official residence in New Delhi. Dhankhar questioned the delay in lodging a First Information Report (FIR) in the case, asking why the criminal justice system hadn't been operationalized as it would for any other individual. He voiced concerns about the integrity of the investigation, stressing the need for a swift and scientific approach to uncover the source and purpose of the money, and whether it had influenced the judicial system. He also criticized the recovery of electronic equipment from witnesses by the three-judge in-house committee probing the case, calling it a "serious issue."

The K Veeraswami judgment, which Dhankhar advocates revisiting, acknowledged judges as "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but stipulated that prior sanction is necessary to prosecute them. This requirement aims to protect judicial independence by shielding judges from frivolous or politically motivated legal actions. However, critics argue that it creates an additional layer of protection for judges, potentially hindering accountability and undermining the principle of equality before the law.

Dhankhar's remarks also touched upon the broader relationship between the judiciary and the executive. In April, he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling that prescribed a timeline for the President to decide on bills, arguing that the court cannot direct the President of India and should only interpret the Constitution. He also expressed concern that Article 142 of the Constitution, granting the Supreme Court special powers, had become a "nuclear missile against democratic forces."

These statements reflect a growing debate about the balance of power between the different branches of government. Dhankhar emphasized the importance of the separation of powers, noting that while the government is elected by the people and accountable to Parliament, governance by the judiciary raises questions of accountability. He asserted that the legislature, judiciary, and executive must "blossom" within their defined boundaries.

The Vice-President's call to revisit the K Veeraswami judgment raises important questions about judicial accountability and the mechanisms for addressing allegations of misconduct against judges. While proponents of judicial independence argue that prior sanction is essential to protect judges from undue harassment, others maintain that it hinders the fight against corruption and creates a perception of impunity. The debate is likely to continue, with legal experts and policymakers weighing the need to safeguard judicial independence against the imperative of ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law.