Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday launched a scathing attack on the judiciary, branding Article 142 of the Constitution a “nuclear missile” that threatens democratic principles, always at the judiciary’s disposal.

The remarks follow the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment, which marked a historic first by imposing a three-month deadline for the President to approve or reject Bills reserved by the Governors.

Speaking at the valedictory ceremony for the 6th batch of Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice President’s Enclave, Dhankhar expressed alarm over a recent Supreme Court ruling directing the President to act on Bills within a set timeframe, arguing it undermines the separation of powers.

The bench, led by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, ruled that delays beyond this period require justification and affirmed that the President’s actions under Article 201 are subject to judicial review. The court also advised the President to refer Bills raising constitutional questions to the judiciary and urged coordination between states and the Centre.

This ruling stemmed from a dispute in Tamil Nadu, where Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in assenting to 10 Bills was deemed “illegal” and “arbitrary” by the court, allowing the state to challenge the President’s withholding of assent.

Dhankhar, however, called the directive to the President—a figure sworn to uphold the Constitution—unacceptable. “Where are we heading? Directing the President to act within a timeframe, failing which a Bill becomes law? This allows judges to legislate, govern, and act as a super-parliament without accountability,” he said, warning of a judiciary overstepping its constitutional role under Article 145(3) to interpret the law.

Emphasising the separation of powers, Dhankhar argued that the elected Executive is answerable to Parliament and voters, unlike the judiciary. “If judges govern, who do we question? How do we hold them accountable at elections?” he asked, urging the legislature, judiciary, and executive to operate within their designated domains to safeguard democracy. “Any overreach by one into another’s sphere is a dangerous challenge,” he added.

Dhankhar also raised concerns about judicial accountability, citing a March 14-15 incident where a large cash stash was discovered at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma.

He criticised the lack of an FIR and the formation of a three-judge committee to probe the matter, questioning why the Executive’s investigative authority was bypassed. “The Constitution grants immunity from prosecution only to the President and Governors. How has another category secured such protection?” he asked.

Noting that over a month has passed since the cash haul, Dhankhar demanded transparency. “Even if it’s a can of worms or skeletons in the closet, it’s time to open the lid and let the truth out for institutional cleansing,” he said, contrasting the slow response with the swift action he believes would have followed a similar incident at his own residence.

In a significant move aimed at unifying its search experience, Google has announced plans to phase out country-level domain names, such as google.ng for Nigeria and google.com.br for Brazil. Instead, the tech giant will redirect users globally to a standardised domain, google.com. This decision aligns with Google’s ongoing effort to enhance search functionality and accessibility, building on the improvement in local search capabilities introduced in 2017.

In a recent blog post, Google explained that it will begin redirecting traffic from these country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) to google.com. This transition will be implemented gradually over the coming months. Users may be prompted to adjust their search preferences during this process, as the company works to streamline the user experience.

“Historically, our approach to delivering localised search results relied on ccTLDs,” Google stated. “However, our capability to offer localised experiences has evolved significantly, making these distinctions unnecessary.” The company reassured users that the core functionality of its search platform will remain unchanged and that compliance with various national regulations will continue.

This initiative reflects Google’s commitment to improving how search results are tailored to individual users without the need for separate country-specific domains. While the official rationale emphasises enhancing global user experience, some industry experts speculate that the change may also be motivated by a desire to better integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into search results, potentially leading to reduced operational costs.

Google employs AI Overviews, a tool designed to aggregate information from a broad range of online sources to provide concise responses to user inquiries. This transition to a centralised domain may help Google optimise AI performance in delivering relevant search results.

Overall, as Google implements this shift, users can expect a more unified search experience. While changes in browser addresses may occur, Google emphasises that the way search operates and its compliance with national laws will remain consistent. This strategic shift signifies Google’s ongoing efforts to adapt to the evolving digital landscape and user needs globally.

A legal showdown between Honasa Consumer Ltd. (HCL), the parent company of Mamaearth, and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL), which owns Lakmé, reached the Delhi High Court this week, with both FMCG giants filing defamation lawsuits against each other. On Thursday, the court ordered HUL to pull its current Lakmé sunscreen advertisements, prompting the company to agree to revise its campaign by removing references to “online bestseller” and altering the depicted packaging colours.

The dispute centres on Lakmé’s recent “SPF Lie Detector Test” campaign, which HCL alleges unfairly targets its Derma Co. sunscreen by questioning the efficacy of rival products.

In the ads, HUL claims that some “online bestseller” sunscreens, marketed as SPF 50, provide protection closer to SPF 20, based on in-vivo testing data from the past decade. While no brands are explicitly named, visuals juxtaposing yellow bottles—resembling Derma Co.’s packaging—against Lakmé’s sparked Honasa’s ire.

Honasa, in its plea to the Delhi High Court, argued that HUL’s claims are misleading and disparage competitors, damaging their reputation. In retaliation, HUL filed a countersuit against Honasa in the Bombay High Court, escalating the corporate feud.

The controversy erupted when Ghazal Alagh, co-founder of Honasa, took to LinkedIn to criticise the FMCG sector’s lack of competitive drive, suggesting that legacy brands like HUL have grown complacent. Her comments were seen as a direct jab at Lakmé’s campaign, which challenges the SPF claims of newer sunscreen brands dominating online markets. “The industry needs fresh competition to shake things up,” Alagh wrote, igniting a public spat.

Lakmé’s campaign asserts that some top-selling sunscreens falsely claim in vivo testing—a method involving live organisms like humans or animals—while delivering subpar protection. In a social media statement, Lakmé doubled down, saying, “Certain online bestsellers advertise SPF 50, but their in-market samples test closer to SPF 20.”