Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces available to judiciary 24x7. We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There it has...

VPIndia's profile picture

Vice-President of India

1,708,528 subscribers

393,934 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Kommentare

Profilbild von Priyanka
Priyankavor 1 Jahr

THANK YOU very much, Sir @VPIndia, Shri @narendramodi , @AmitShah , for taking up Article 142 and pinning it down point blank! 😇

Profilbild von Building 7 Boutique
Building 7 Boutiquevor 1 Jahr

🇺🇸 Trump: Better Coverage than 5G...Can you hear us now? 🇺🇸 Get ready to celebrate the 2025 Presidential Inauguration!

Profilbild von PLUGPULR
PLUGPULRvor 1 Jahr

AMEND or ABOLISH article 142!!!!! 🙏🏽🇮🇳 @PMOIndia

Profilbild von Narsinha N D
Narsinha N Dvor 1 Jahr

Court kis basis par Sansad me banaye niyam hata sakti hai? Court ko fir 2013 me bane Waqf ke vishesh adhikar ko bhi hata dena chahiye.

Profilbild von Mr. X
Mr. Xvor 1 Jahr

Also, why the Judges gets 2 months of vacation sponsored by common tax payers? While everyone works hard and they just enjoy while crores of cases pending involving poorest of the citizens. Time to have check and balances on Judiciary as well.

Profilbild von Saumya Shukla
Saumya Shuklavor 1 Jahr

ये देश के लोकतंत्र की न्यायपालिका की तानाशाही के खिलाफ आवाज है।👏🏼

Profilbild von Prem Tiwari🇮🇳
Prem Tiwari🇮🇳vor 1 Jahr

जज न तो जनता चुनती है, न ही वो चुनाव लड़ते हैं — बस आपसी जुगाड़ और लॉबी से सेलेक्ट हो जाते हैं। और फिर लोकतंत्र के सिर पर बैठकर चुनी हुई सरकार के फैसलों पर रोक लगाते हैं। यही है ‘लोकतंत्र का असली न्याय’!"

Profilbild von Rakesh Bhatt
Rakesh Bhattvor 1 Jahr

Checks and balances are the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It's time for the legislature and executive to push back against judicial overreach.

Profilbild von Shubham
Shubhamvor 1 Jahr

No one is above the law, not even president. Why the president was sitting on the bills? That's why Supreme Court is given the power of complete justice. Please get your basics of Democracy right.

Profilbild von Saravanakumar
Saravanakumarvor 1 Jahr

Great sir really great sir

Profilbild von Amit Sinha
Amit Sinhavor 1 Jahr

Judicial outreach and flawed judgements have become order of the day

Ähnliche Videos

Under article 2 section 1 of the Constitution Federal Judges cannot overrule an executive order by the POTUS. These radical activist Judges are ruling against the Constitution and should be reprimanded accordingly, and President Trump should ignore these Judge and give them the middle finger.
1:27

Under article 2 section 1 of the Constitution Federal Judges cannot overrule an executive order by the POTUS. These radical activist Judges are ruling against the Constitution and should be reprimanded accordingly, and President Trump should ignore these Judge and give them the middle finger.

Hatton, America is back

180,830 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The President has Article II powers to run the executive branch of this government and we're seeing a handful of judges trying to stop that and subvert the will of the people. I would rather follow the Constitution than a judge who has got an agenda.
0:49

The President has Article II powers to run the executive branch of this government and we're seeing a handful of judges trying to stop that and subvert the will of the people. I would rather follow the Constitution than a judge who has got an agenda.

Kari Lake

155,472 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Contempt of Court is Not a Law in Ireland Under Article 15.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested in the Oireachtas. This means that only Acts passed by the Dáil and Seanad, and signed by the President, can be considered “law” in Ireland. At present, “contempt of court” is enforced by judges through inherent jurisdiction and common law practice, not through an Act of the Oireachtas. There is no statute that has been enacted by the Oireachtas which defines contempt of court, sets out its elements, or prescribes penalties. Because contempt is based on judicial discretion and unwritten common law, it does not meet the constitutional standard of being a law made by the Oireachtas. Therefore, while courts may act as if it is enforceable, it is not, strictly speaking, an Irish law under Article 15.2 of the Constitution. #Constitution #Ireland #Oireachtas #RuleOfLaw #Justice #Accountability #Truth
1:53

Contempt of Court is Not a Law in Ireland Under Article 15.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested in the Oireachtas. This means that only Acts passed by the Dáil and Seanad, and signed by the President, can be considered “law” in Ireland. At present, “contempt of court” is enforced by judges through inherent jurisdiction and common law practice, not through an Act of the Oireachtas. There is no statute that has been enacted by the Oireachtas which defines contempt of court, sets out its elements, or prescribes penalties. Because contempt is based on judicial discretion and unwritten common law, it does not meet the constitutional standard of being a law made by the Oireachtas. Therefore, while courts may act as if it is enforceable, it is not, strictly speaking, an Irish law under Article 15.2 of the Constitution. #Constitution #Ireland #Oireachtas #RuleOfLaw #Justice #Accountability #Truth

Patrick McGreal

14,710 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar questions Judiciary 🔥🔥#SupremeCourtOfIndia Waqf Amendment Act से सम्बंधित सुनवाई मे केंद्र ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट से कहा कि आप संसद द्वारा पारित कानून पर रोक नहीं लगा सकते" सुप्रीम कोर्ट को सहमत होना पड़ा! He says - "We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India." "Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court special powers" "But now that has become Nuclear Missile Against Democratic Forces 24X7" - VP DHANKAR
2:39

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar questions Judiciary 🔥🔥#SupremeCourtOfIndia Waqf Amendment Act से सम्बंधित सुनवाई मे केंद्र ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट से कहा कि आप संसद द्वारा पारित कानून पर रोक नहीं लगा सकते" सुप्रीम कोर्ट को सहमत होना पड़ा! He says - "We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India." "Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court special powers" "But now that has become Nuclear Missile Against Democratic Forces 24X7" - VP DHANKAR

अखण्ड भारत संकल्प

18,271 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

VIDEO | Vice-President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar (Vice-President of India) says, "President of India is a very elevated position. President takes oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This oath is taken only by President and her appointees, the Governors. Everyone, the Prime Minister, the Vice-President, the Ministers, the Parliamentarians, the judges, they take oath to abide by the Constitution. But to defend the Constitution, to preserve the Constitution, to protect the Constitution, that is the oath of the President of India, the supreme commander of the armed forces...There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day..." (Source: Third Party) (Full video available on PTI Videos -
3:20

VIDEO | Vice-President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar (Vice-President of India) says, "President of India is a very elevated position. President takes oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This oath is taken only by President and her appointees, the Governors. Everyone, the Prime Minister, the Vice-President, the Ministers, the Parliamentarians, the judges, they take oath to abide by the Constitution. But to defend the Constitution, to preserve the Constitution, to protect the Constitution, that is the oath of the President of India, the supreme commander of the armed forces...There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day..." (Source: Third Party) (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

971,881 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

There is a committee of three judges investigating the matter, but investigation is domain of the Executive. Investigation is not the domain of Judiciary. Is the committee under the Constitution of India? No. Is this committee of three judges having any sanction under any law emanating from Parliament ? No. A committee can at most make a recommendation. The kind of mechanism we have for judges, the only action that can be taken is by the Parliament. A month has passed. An investigation requires speed, expedition and preservation of incriminating material. As a citizen of the country and holding position which I do, I am concerned. Are we not diluting rule of law? Are we not answerable to 'We the People' who gave us the Constitution? I would strongly urge everyone concerned to examine this as a test case. What legitimacy and jurisdictional authority does this committee possess? Can we have separate law made by a category and the law made by that category, dehors Constitution, dehors Parliament? The committee report, according to me, inherently lacks legal standing. #RajyaSabha
2:16

There is a committee of three judges investigating the matter, but investigation is domain of the Executive. Investigation is not the domain of Judiciary. Is the committee under the Constitution of India? No. Is this committee of three judges having any sanction under any law emanating from Parliament ? No. A committee can at most make a recommendation. The kind of mechanism we have for judges, the only action that can be taken is by the Parliament. A month has passed. An investigation requires speed, expedition and preservation of incriminating material. As a citizen of the country and holding position which I do, I am concerned. Are we not diluting rule of law? Are we not answerable to 'We the People' who gave us the Constitution? I would strongly urge everyone concerned to examine this as a test case. What legitimacy and jurisdictional authority does this committee possess? Can we have separate law made by a category and the law made by that category, dehors Constitution, dehors Parliament? The committee report, according to me, inherently lacks legal standing. #RajyaSabha

Vice-President of India

497,082 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Constitution framers were very wise people who deeply believed in national welfare. They debated for 18 sessions for a little less than three years. There was no confrontation. There were no disturbance, no disruption. There were dialogue, debate, discussion and deliberation. They framed one rule. The judges will be appointed under Article 124 and the word consultation was used. Consultation is not concurrence. Consultation is consultation. Article 124 was very specific and with respect to it, we have a very important discourse by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and I quote, “To allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of a judge is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of the day. I therefore think that is also a dangerous proposition.” But in the Second Judge’s case in 1993, the court interpreted consultation will be read as concurrence. The two words are different. But the bench did not notice that Indian Constitution uses these words consultation and concurrence in the same article. Article 370 with respect to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir has both expressions in the same sub-articles. How can these two words used differently by the constituent assembly members in the Constitution be read differently? Now the situation is engaging attention of everyone. And it is our obligation as citizens of this country to think about how things have to evolve. #RajyaSabha
3:15

Constitution framers were very wise people who deeply believed in national welfare. They debated for 18 sessions for a little less than three years. There was no confrontation. There were no disturbance, no disruption. There were dialogue, debate, discussion and deliberation. They framed one rule. The judges will be appointed under Article 124 and the word consultation was used. Consultation is not concurrence. Consultation is consultation. Article 124 was very specific and with respect to it, we have a very important discourse by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and I quote, “To allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of a judge is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of the day. I therefore think that is also a dangerous proposition.” But in the Second Judge’s case in 1993, the court interpreted consultation will be read as concurrence. The two words are different. But the bench did not notice that Indian Constitution uses these words consultation and concurrence in the same article. Article 370 with respect to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir has both expressions in the same sub-articles. How can these two words used differently by the constituent assembly members in the Constitution be read differently? Now the situation is engaging attention of everyone. And it is our obligation as citizens of this country to think about how things have to evolve. #RajyaSabha

Vice-President of India

73,695 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

President Trump knows his rights under Article II of the Constitution. Despite the Supreme Court's ridiculous ruling, President Trump should not give a penny from USAID. The DOJ is bold, fearless, and capable. They will not let activist judges or rattled law professors rule against the Constitution. Thanks for having me, NEWSMAX
5:27

President Trump knows his rights under Article II of the Constitution. Despite the Supreme Court's ridiculous ruling, President Trump should not give a penny from USAID. The DOJ is bold, fearless, and capable. They will not let activist judges or rattled law professors rule against the Constitution. Thanks for having me, NEWSMAX

🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

151,425 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Rep. Andy Biggs Introduces Resolution to Remove Federal Judges Under Article III In a powerful exchange on Lindell TV, Rep. Andy Biggs revealed he is filing a first-of-its-kind resolution using Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution to remove federal judges for failing to uphold “good behavior.” Biggs calls out judicial overreach, politically biased rulings, and weaponized courts—arguing that Congress has the authority to strip judges of power and even eliminate lower courts entirely. “This isn’t impeachment. It’s constitutional accountability.” Watch the full interview now on Lindell TV
7:14

Rep. Andy Biggs Introduces Resolution to Remove Federal Judges Under Article III In a powerful exchange on Lindell TV, Rep. Andy Biggs revealed he is filing a first-of-its-kind resolution using Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution to remove federal judges for failing to uphold “good behavior.” Biggs calls out judicial overreach, politically biased rulings, and weaponized courts—arguing that Congress has the authority to strip judges of power and even eliminate lower courts entirely. “This isn’t impeachment. It’s constitutional accountability.” Watch the full interview now on Lindell TV

LindellTV

37,734 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

ROBERTS: Critics will say this is the government expanding the powers of Article 1 of the Constitution, now they're arresting judges. How do you respond? BONDI: Nobody is above the law
0:50

ROBERTS: Critics will say this is the government expanding the powers of Article 1 of the Constitution, now they're arresting judges. How do you respond? BONDI: Nobody is above the law

Aaron Rupar

385,501 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Levin: We can have a judicial oligarchy of unelected judges at the trial court level who aren't even in the constitution telling the president what to do
0:31

Levin: We can have a judicial oligarchy of unelected judges at the trial court level who aren't even in the constitution telling the president what to do

Acyn

56,243 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Asaduddin owaisi has incurred disqualification by virtue of Article 102 of the Constitution of India and petition has been filed before the President of India. He is likely to be disqualified in accordance with the Constitution
2:24

Asaduddin owaisi has incurred disqualification by virtue of Article 102 of the Constitution of India and petition has been filed before the President of India. He is likely to be disqualified in accordance with the Constitution

Vishnu Shankar Jain

314,344 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨 Julia Hartley-Brewer's scathing review of "human rights lunatics" serving as lawyers and judges over their interpretation of the ECHR. "How have they managed to interpret the right of foreign criminals to have the right to stay here under Article 8?" Julia Hartley-Brewer
2:54

🚨 Julia Hartley-Brewer's scathing review of "human rights lunatics" serving as lawyers and judges over their interpretation of the ECHR. "How have they managed to interpret the right of foreign criminals to have the right to stay here under Article 8?" Julia Hartley-Brewer

Talk

25,022 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Blanche on Halligan: Judges are stepping in and saying you can't be U.S. Attorney, that's not consistent with Article II of this constitution…. It is really at its basic level Trump derangement syndrome. The president has nominated phenomenal attorneys to be U.S. Attorneys and you have judges/senators who have said: no we're not even going to talk to them…
2:04

Blanche on Halligan: Judges are stepping in and saying you can't be U.S. Attorney, that's not consistent with Article II of this constitution…. It is really at its basic level Trump derangement syndrome. The president has nominated phenomenal attorneys to be U.S. Attorneys and you have judges/senators who have said: no we're not even going to talk to them…

Acyn

796,496 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Clarification on the Fed and Trump’s power: “The President has power under Article II of the Constitution to fire any of these executive branch officers… if people argue that he does NOT have this power, then the Fed is unconstitutional." 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
3:59

Clarification on the Fed and Trump’s power: “The President has power under Article II of the Constitution to fire any of these executive branch officers… if people argue that he does NOT have this power, then the Fed is unconstitutional." 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

NanLee Marie Carissimi

23,614 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “We live in a society of rule of law. The Supreme Court has its power. Judges have their power. And it should frighten every American, whether you're conservative or progressive, that you have a president who does not respect our Constitution and wants more and more power for himself."
4:01

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “We live in a society of rule of law. The Supreme Court has its power. Judges have their power. And it should frighten every American, whether you're conservative or progressive, that you have a president who does not respect our Constitution and wants more and more power for himself."

Kaitlan Collins

504,242 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

THE CONVERSATION BEGINS HERE: What does the law provide about demonstrations? 1. Article 37 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to PEACEBLY and UNARMED to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities. 2. The right to assemble demonstrate, picket and present petitions to public authorities is hence exercisable under Article 37 of the Constitution under two conditional precedents which must be met: PEACEBLY and UNARMED. Have the maandamano we have witnessed being done PEACEBLY and by UNARMED persons? 3. Suffice it to note that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is not an absolute right. 4. Article 24 of the Constitution provides that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is one of the rights that can be limited vide legislation to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individuals does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others. Have the maandamano not taken away the right to property of Kenyans with the mass destruction not only of private property but public property? 5. Article 259(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that advances the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of rights. To what extent do the maandamano fall within the defined parameters of the Constitution in particular the Bill of Rights? Is looting, destruction of property, anarchy and hooliganism the definition of demonstrations? Certainly not. These are purely criminal acts that have no constitutional basis! The conversation should begin here.
2:23

THE CONVERSATION BEGINS HERE: What does the law provide about demonstrations? 1. Article 37 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to PEACEBLY and UNARMED to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities. 2. The right to assemble demonstrate, picket and present petitions to public authorities is hence exercisable under Article 37 of the Constitution under two conditional precedents which must be met: PEACEBLY and UNARMED. Have the maandamano we have witnessed being done PEACEBLY and by UNARMED persons? 3. Suffice it to note that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is not an absolute right. 4. Article 24 of the Constitution provides that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is one of the rights that can be limited vide legislation to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individuals does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others. Have the maandamano not taken away the right to property of Kenyans with the mass destruction not only of private property but public property? 5. Article 259(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that advances the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of rights. To what extent do the maandamano fall within the defined parameters of the Constitution in particular the Bill of Rights? Is looting, destruction of property, anarchy and hooliganism the definition of demonstrations? Certainly not. These are purely criminal acts that have no constitutional basis! The conversation should begin here.

Hon. Aden Duale, EGH

101,322 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

[It shall be the duty of every citizen of India] To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Article 51 A(h) under Fundamental Duties Of Citizens - as per the Constitution of India.
0:37

[It shall be the duty of every citizen of India] To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Article 51 A(h) under Fundamental Duties Of Citizens - as per the Constitution of India.

The DeshBhakt 🇮🇳

64,841 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

American has a number of LIFETIME APPOINTED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES who were NOT BORN IN AMERICA but rather are naturalized citizens. Federal judges BORN in Uruguay, Trinidad, Jamaica, India, Canada (that one to EGYPTIAN MIGRANT parents, so not even culturally Canadian)--ANYWHERE BUT AMERICA. ALL OF THESE FOREIGN-BORN FEDERAL JUDGES, by the way, APPOINTED BY DEMOCRATS, Obama and Biden, or whoever was pulling Biden's strings. And EVERY ONE OF THEM among the just 15 judges in the District of Columbia District Courts--you know, the one HEAD BY CHIEF JUDGE BOASBERG. These five UNELECTED federal judges make up just TWO PERCENT of the Federal Article III district courts, but THIRTY PERCENT of the lawfare being waged against our DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED Article III Executive Branch President Trump, and therefore being waged against the political will of the American people. Check it out.
4:58

American has a number of LIFETIME APPOINTED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES who were NOT BORN IN AMERICA but rather are naturalized citizens. Federal judges BORN in Uruguay, Trinidad, Jamaica, India, Canada (that one to EGYPTIAN MIGRANT parents, so not even culturally Canadian)--ANYWHERE BUT AMERICA. ALL OF THESE FOREIGN-BORN FEDERAL JUDGES, by the way, APPOINTED BY DEMOCRATS, Obama and Biden, or whoever was pulling Biden's strings. And EVERY ONE OF THEM among the just 15 judges in the District of Columbia District Courts--you know, the one HEAD BY CHIEF JUDGE BOASBERG. These five UNELECTED federal judges make up just TWO PERCENT of the Federal Article III district courts, but THIRTY PERCENT of the lawfare being waged against our DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED Article III Executive Branch President Trump, and therefore being waged against the political will of the American people. Check it out.

Andrew Branca Show

90,183 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten