Vice President’s remark on SC: Justified or out of line?

The Supreme Court has fixed a time limit to act on the bills that were passed by the state assemblies. While one month was set as a limit for Governors, three-month time was given to the President. This judgement has received a mixed response from the public. While some have applauded the verdict, others have criticized it severely, claiming that the Supreme Court does not have any power to impose a time limit on the President.
One of those who severely criticized the verdict is vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. Without understanding the time limit was imposed to prevent the President from sitting on the bills endlessly, he said that the Supreme Court has used Article 142 as a missile against democracy. On Tuesday, he further said, ‘Parliament is superior to all political institutions, and MPs are the masters.”
How fair is that? Is it right for a person of that stature to talk so irresponsibly? Is anyone, be it the president or the governor, above the provisions of the Indian constitution? The Court has only done its duty, and setting a time limit to provide complete justice falls within its power. How can this be wrong?
This judgment has not damaged the dignity of the President; this time limit is a procedural arrangement for his duty to be properly fulfilled in a democratic country. There is no doubt that the President will accept this with great generosity. The correct view can be that this judgment regulates the loopholes in the law in the President’s activities and does not say anything wrong.
The exemption provided by the Indian Constitution (to Governors and the President) is based on personal position, not that his activities are beyond legal remedy.
Who has the power to review and declare the bills passed by the parliament to be valid or invalid? Only the Court has. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who administers the oath of office to the president. Does the Constitution say that anything that is assented by the President shouldn’t be criticized or examined?
Isn't justice delayed is nothing but justice denied? How fair is it to say that Article 142 was used as a missile against democracy?
Political commentators feel that the vice president should have avoided criticizing the Court in public, and it would have been if he would have expressed his opinion directly to the Chief Justice of India.
Just like the Parliament, the President post and the Supreme Court also hold the supreme position. Similarly, the posts of vice president and prime minister also hold the supreme court. But the Indian Constitution is above everything and anything. Because it is the Constitution that held them high and defined their powers.
Raising questions regarding superiority, and creating a conflict is not advisable in a democratic country.