The Vice President’s sudden departure leaves a trail of unanswered questions for India’s democracy
Tejeswar Patnaik
The Vice President of India holds the second-highest constitutional office in the country, serving also as the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Tasked with upholding parliamentary decorum and impartiality, the role is pivotal in India’s legislative functioning. The abrupt resignation of the country’s Vice President, Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, on the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, citing health reasons, has taken political circles by surprise. For the first time in India’s parliamentary history, a Vice President and ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has stepped down before completing a full term. Under normal circumstances, Shri Dhankhar’s tenure was set to end in 2027.
What has raised eyebrows is the manner and timing of his resignation, which has also caused a degree of embarrassment for the government. More intriguing still is the conspicuous silence maintained by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members over this sudden constitutional development. Political analysts are busy speculating about the possible reasons behind this unexpected move. Numerous conjectures and media narratives abound as to what may have triggered the resignation of the second-highest constitutional authority in the country.
One line of thought links his resignation to his decision to admit a notice of motion in the Rajya Sabha, submitted by the Opposition, seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Verma, on charges of corruption. This was done despite the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s preference to initiate the process in the Lok Sabha. Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal had already apprised the Vice President that a notice of motion signed by 145 Members of Parliament (MPs) from across party lines had been submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker. Following the Opposition’s initiative in the Upper House, the BJP also did not want to appear silent or unresponsive regarding action against Justice Verma, who faces allegations of corruption.
Accordingly, the ruling party gathered signatures of its MPs in support of the motion. Normally, when such motions are submitted simultaneously in both Houses, a joint committee is formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman. However, Mr. Dhankhar’s proactive move to admit the Opposition-sponsored notice, signed by 63 members in the Rajya Sabha, reportedly did not go down well with the ruling dispensation.
Some sources point to signs of friction, including the absence of Leader of the House (LoH) J.P. Nadda and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs (MoPA) Kiren Rijiju from the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting convened by the Chairman. Adding to the tension, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP), Mallikarjun Kharge, was allowed to speak before Mr. Nadda during the session—a protocol deviation noted by many. Speculations are also rife that political compulsions could have been at play—particularly whether pressure was mounted on Mr. Dhankhar to make way for a leader from Bihar, with state Assembly elections on the horizon. However, these are assumptions only, and the real story is yet to be unfolded.
In Mr. Dhankhar’s absence, as per constitutional provisions, the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman is authorized to preside over the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha. The Vice President, by Article 64, also serves as the ex officio Chairman of the Upper House, a position that demands neutrality and effective floor management.
Political Observers note that Mr. Dhankhar’s tenure has not been without controversy. He frequently made critical remarks about the judiciary and was reportedly keen to admit a similar motion against another judge, Justice Yadav, for alleged hate speech. His public questioning of the Supreme Court of India’s (SCI) “basic structure doctrine,” established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (KBC), also attracted attention. In another instance, he criticized the apex court’s directive requiring State Governors to act promptly within deadlines on state bills—a move seen as adding to the friction.
The NDA government, it seems, was reluctant to be drawn into an open confrontation with the judiciary. More recently, Mr. Dhankhar voiced his opposition to the 1976 Constitutional Amendment (CA) that inserted the words “socialist” and “secular” into the Preamble of the Constitution of India (PCI)—a stance that further created controversy. As Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Dhankhar was frequently accused by the Opposition of displaying partisanship.
At one stage, in an unprecedented move, the Opposition even moved a notice seeking his removal, citing partisan conduct. The motion was ultimately defeated on the House floor. His sudden exit has provided fresh ammunition to the Opposition, who are now demanding answers from the Government Benches (Treasury Benches). Meanwhile, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has initiated the constitutional process for electing the next Vice President.
Article 63(2) of the Constitution stipulates that in the event of a vacancy caused by death, resignation, or removal, the election to the office of Vice President must be held immediately. The person elected under such a scenario is entitled to a full five-year term. Article 66 mandates that the Vice President be elected by an Electoral College consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament (EC-MHP) through Proportional Representation (PR) via a Single Transferable Vote (STV) under a Secret Ballot (SB).
The process is conducted by the ECI per Article 324. The eligibility criteria for candidates must also be met, ensuring that the office is filled by someone of appropriate stature and constitutional integrity. At present, the process of selecting a candidate is underway to succeed Shri Dhankhar. Whoever assumes the post is expected to conduct the House with impartiality and tact, balancing the interests of both the ruling and Opposition benches.
It may be recalled that India has had several distinguished Vice Presidents in the past, including Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Dr. Zakir Husain, and K.R. Narayanan. Dr. Radhakrishnan, a philosopher-statesman, and his successors left a lasting legacy in public life. All three went on to become Presidents of India, having contributed significantly to the nation’s democratic evolution and governance. Therefore, the Vice President’s office demands statesmanship above politics, a standard not easily upheld. This episode underscores the fragile balance between constitutional propriety and political strategy.
(The writer is a former banker and a columnist. Views are personal)