Opposition moves no-confidence motion against RS Chair – what is the procedure, and why the attempt is unlikely to succeed

What is the process and the requirements for impeaching the chairperson of Rajya Sabha, who is also the Vice President of India? How did the framers of the Constitution view this action?

What does it take to remove the Rajya Sabha chairman from his position?

Under Article 64 of the Constitution of India, the Vice President “shall be ex officio Chairman of the Council of the States”.

Since the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairperson must be the same individual, the process for their removal is also the same – and is laid down under Article 67.

Under this provision, the Vice President “shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office” unless the Vice President resigns before that by sending a letter to the President, or is removed from office.

The requirements for removing or impeaching the Vice President are provided under Article 67(b).

It states that the Vice President may be removed if a majority “all the then members of the Council (Rajya Sabha)” passes a resolution for his removal, which must then be “agreed to” by the House of the People (Lok Sabha).

Under this provision, “no resolution…shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution”.

What happens after the notice for impeachment is given?

Upon the expiry of the 14-day period, Rajya Sabha will take up the resolution for discussion. The procedure outlined in Article 67(b) will then follow.

In the present case, it is unclear if the resolution will be taken up by the House. This is because the Winter Session of Parliament is scheduled to conclude on December 20, which is less than 14 days away. There are no precedents to determine whether this same resolution can be considered in the next Session of the House.

In any case, given the arithmetic in Parliament, it is almost certain that the resolution will be defeated. This is largely a symbolic move of protest by the Opposition that alleges the Vice President is unfair and partisan in the way he conducts the House.

How did Article 67 come to be in the Constitution?

During the debates in the Constituent Assembly, several members had raised concerns about the language of Article 67, and had proposed amendments to provide clarity to the process of removing the Vice President.

H V Kamath pointed out that the requirement for the Rajya Sabha resolution to be “agreed to” by the Lok Sabha was “so delightfully vague” – not even specifying whether the resolution must be passed by a majority.

Kamath proposed that the provision should instead read “agreed to by a similar resolution” to clearly show that Lok Sabha must also pass the resolution by a majority.

Dr B R Ambedkar clarified that Lok Sabha must indeed pass the resolution by a simple majority — 50% of all members present and voting would have to agree to the resolution.

But the reason this was phrased differently, he said, was because the requirement for passing the resolution in Rajya Sabha was different. The resolution must be passed by a majority of all members of Rajya Sabha whose seats are not vacant, not simply those who are present and voting.

Kamath also pointed out the “strange anomaly” that arises when comparing the procedures for impeaching the President and the Vice President.

Article 61 prescribes the procedure for impeaching the President. The resolution with the charge has to be passed by “a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House” in which the charge has been brought.

Once “a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation”.

If, after investigation, the House by which the charge was investigated or caused to be investigated passes a resolution “by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House…declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained”, the resolution “shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which the resolution is so passed”.

Dr Ambedkar explained that “…although the Constitution speaks of Vice-President, he really is a Chairman of the Council of States”, and in terms of his functions, “he is…an opposite number of the Speaker of the House of People”.

The processes of removal of the Vice President and the Speaker (under Article 94 of the Constitution) were the same, he said.