Seventy-four-year-old Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s decision to quit late at night on the first day of Parliament’s Monsoon session has shocked one and all. Less than a month ago, Dhankar said that he would retire at the “right time, subject to divine interventions”. I pray for his good health and wish him a speedy recovery. Dhankar had a meeting with Opposition leaders late evening on July 21 and did not appear to look unwell after presiding over the House. There are speculations over the cause of his resignation, even though Dhankar has said that he was “prioritising his health”. This is not the first time that a vice president has tendered his resignation. V V Giri resigned to take over as Acting President after President Zakir Hussain died in office in May 1969. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat put in his papers after being defeated in the presidential election by Pratibha Patil. R Venkataraman, Shankar Dayal Sharma and K R Narayanan also resigned after getting elected as President.
Dhankhar, a lawyer by profession, was picked up by the Modi government in 2022 for the constitutional post after he had served as the West Bengal governor. His tenure as governor was quite controversial due to a strained relationship with Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee. Like the current Tamil Nadu Governor, he blocked several bills. However, Mamta Banerjee’s TMC did not oppose his candidature outright; instead, the party abstained in the election of the 14th Vice President of India. Dhankhar thanked the West Bengal CM for this gesture.
The Vice-President’s office is above politics. However, Dhankhar not only made politically loaded statements in favour of the BJP government at the Centre, but in the last Rajasthan assembly elections, his visits to the state raised questions. On another occasion, he is reported to have raised the politically controversial issues of conversion and population control.
Under Article 66, the Vice President is elected by Members of Parliament. Though number two in matters of protocol, the Vice-President does not have any significant role in the governance of the country. However, as the ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha, he performs the extremely important role of presiding over the proceedings of Parliament’s Upper House.
As Rajya Sabha Chairman, Dhankhar was supposed to be a neutral umpire. However, at times, he was accused of being inclined towards the government. For the first time in the republic’s history, the Opposition brought a proposal for the removal of the Vice-President — it was rejected by the Deputy Chairman.
Several constitutionally untenable statements against the judiciary also made Dhankhar’s tenure controversial. In April, in a scathing criticism of the Supreme Court, he described the Court’s invocation of Article 142 as akin to a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”. His observations were in the context of the Court fixing timelines for a governor to sign bills. The judgment that Dhankhar criticised actually tried to strengthen democratic forces — an unelected governor cannot delay assent to decisions of elected representatives of the people. Moreover, Article 142 was included in the Constitution to enable the apex court to fill legal gaps and adjudicate on matters where the laws aren’t clear. The Article was invoked by the SC in the Babri Masjid verdict as well to lay down guidelines in the absence of statutory provisions. Of course, questions were asked of the verdict that fixed timelines. Whether the President, too, should be asked to follow timelines is a contentious constitutional issue, and a presidential reference is now before a five-judge bench of the SC. Similarly, Dhankhar’s repeated statement that the SC is acting as a “super Parliament” was not in good taste. Of course, many like Dhankhar believe that a judicial review is anti-democratic, but a federal constitution must necessarily have this power to resolve disputes between the Centre and states. If the judiciary does not have this power, it will be difficult to protect the civil liberties of people or attain the goal of constitutionalism.
Democracy is not majoritarianism. The Constitution’s supremacy is the first principle of the country’s constitutional law. It was somewhat perplexing that a senior lawyer like Dhankhar did not appreciate the limits placed on Parliament vis-à-vis the Constitution. Such limits are placed on the Supreme Court as well. However, Dhankhar was right in asserting that constitutional interpretation should always be the work of a bench of five or more judges. One also agrees with him that on the question of constitutional institutions, we must learn to differ without disrupting. Nevertheless, it’s difficult to see eye-to-eye with him on several other matters.
Dhankhar repeatedly attacked the well-established Basic Structure Doctrine as a check on Parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution. In the past, governments rarely questioned this doctrine. But, in February, at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, Dhankhar did not mince words. His position — “the ultimate repository, the ultimate power, the ultimate authority and the last authority is only the Indian Parliament” — was identical to that of Indira Gandhi. He went on to assert that “there can be no intervention from any quarter whatsoever on any pretext whatsoever because the will of the people is reflected in a representative manner on the most sanctified platform through elections.” Dhankhar nullified constitutionalism and furthered the cause of majoritarianism.
Dhankhar would often criticise both judicial overreach, the collegium system and the court’s interpretation of “consultation” as “concurrence”. He criticised the NJAC judgment. On July 7, while addressing NUALS students, he was equally critical of the Chief Justice of India’s participation in the selection of the CBI chief.
For him, the developments of March 15-16, 2025, night, when cash was allegedly found at a judge’s residence, were like the Ides of March. For someone who was to preside over the impeachment proceedings, silence would have been a much better option. Is that the reason for his resignation? Why did he opt out of even the farewell address in the house when he was not that unwell?
The writer is Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Views are personal
