India Asks: Why Now?! Jagdeep Dhankhar’s Sudden Resignation Rocks the Nation! Is Health The Whole Story?!

Executive Summary: A Vice-President’s Unprecedented Exit

Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar, who served as India’s 14th Vice President, tendered his resignation on July 21, 2025, a decision that was formally accepted by the President on July 22, 2025. This mid-term departure from the nation’s second-highest constitutional office marks a truly rare occurrence in India’s political history. Historically, only two previous Vice Presidents, V.V. Giri and R. Venkataraman, have stepped down before completing their full terms; however, their resignations were explicitly linked to their candidacies for the presidential elections, representing a clear upward trajectory in their political careers. In contrast, Mr. Dhankhar’s resignation does not appear to be a precursor to an immediate higher office or a visible political advancement. This absence of a clear political progression distinguishes his case from historical precedents, rendering its underlying context genuinely unique and prompting a deeper inquiry into the circumstances that led to such a departure.

The resignation, effective immediately, arrived with considerable surprise, particularly given its timing on the very first day of the Monsoon session of Parliament. This unexpected announcement, coupled with reports of his seemingly cheerful demeanor just hours before the news broke, has fueled widespread speculation that the reasons for his exit extend beyond the officially stated health grounds. The immediate political landscape is characterised by a palpable sense of surprise from both the ruling establishment and opposition parties, with the latter swiftly questioning the true motives behind this sudden and significant constitutional event. The resignation has, by constitutional mandate, triggered an immediate process for the election of a successor to fill the vacant office.

Introduction: The Sudden Departure of India’s 14th Vice President

Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar, who assumed the esteemed office of the 14th Vice President of India in August 2022, formally resigned from his post on July 21, 2025. His resignation was subsequently accepted by President Droupadi Murmu on July 22, 2025. This event is particularly noteworthy as it represents a rare occurrence in India’s constitutional history, making him only the third Vice President to step down before the completion of their five-year term. The earlier instances of mid-term resignations by V.V. Giri and R. Venkataraman were distinct, as both individuals resigned specifically to contest presidential elections. Mr. Dhankhar’s departure, however, lacks any such apparent political advancement, which sets it apart from these historical precedents.

The official communication regarding his resignation explicitly cited “health care” and the necessity to “abide by medical advice” as the primary reasons for his immediate departure, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution. In his resignation letter, Mr. Dhankhar also conveyed his gratitude to the President for her unwavering support, and extended thanks to the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, and all Members of Parliament for their cooperation and affection throughout his tenure.

Despite the official explanation, the timing of the resignation, occurring on the very first day of the Monsoon session of Parliament, immediately drew widespread scrutiny and surprise. Opposition leaders, including prominent figures such as Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, voiced their shock and disbelief, pointing out Mr. Dhankhar’s seemingly “good jolly self” and cheerful demeanor just hours before the announcement. This immediate questioning from political circles established a climate of speculation, with many opposition parties suggesting that “far deeper reasons” lay behind his sudden exit than merely health concerns.

This immediate scepticism set a politically charged tone for the public discourse surrounding the resignation. The widespread questioning of the official reason, despite a plausible medical explanation, underscores a prevailing scepticism within the political landscape regarding high-profile resignations. This suggests that the stated reason is often viewed as a formal, constitutional requirement, prompting observers and political actors to search for underlying political maneuvers or power dynamics that might truly explain such an abrupt departure.

Jagdeep Dhankhar: A Profile in Public Service

Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar’s extensive career in public life spans several decades, encompassing roles as a lawyer, legislator, Union Minister, Governor, and finally, Vice President. Born on May 18, 1951, in Kithana, a village in Rajasthan’s Jhunjhunu district, he hails from a Hindu Rajasthani Jat family. His educational journey began at Sainik School, Chittorgarh, followed by a B.Sc. and LLB from the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

His legal career commenced in 1979 when he enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Rajasthan. By 1990, he was designated a Senior Advocate by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, a distinction he held as the senior-most designated Senior Advocate in the state until his appointment as Governor in 2019. Throughout his legal practice, he primarily focused on constitutional law, appearing before the Supreme Court of India and various high courts. He also served as the president of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association. Notably, in 2016, he represented the state of Haryana in the Supreme Court concerning the Sutlej River water dispute. His legal engagements also extended to high-profile cases, including his role in securing bail for actor Salman Khan in the black buck case.

Mr. Dhankhar’s political journey began with the Janata Dal, representing the Jhunjhunu Lok Sabha constituency from 1989 to 1991. Following this, he joined the Indian National Congress in 1991, though he was unsuccessful in his bid for the Ajmer Lok Sabha constituency that year. He later served as a Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Kishangarh between 1993 and 1998. During the Chandra Shekhar ministry, from 1990 to 1991, he held the position of Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs. In 2003, he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and subsequently headed the party’s law and legal affairs department in 2016.

His return to prominent public life came with his appointment as the Governor of West Bengal, a role he held from 2019 to 2022. This period was notably marked by frequent and often public confrontations with the state government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Mr. Dhankhar was a vocal critic of the third Banerjee ministry, frequently leveraging social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and other media outlets to express his views on political issues. These clashes encompassed a range of issues, including allegations of post-poll violence, concerns over law enforcement, accusations of corruption, and disputes regarding irregular university appointments. The intensity of these confrontations was such that the West Bengal legislature even passed a law to strip the Governor of his role as university chancellor, assigning it instead to the Chief Minister, a clear legislative rebuke of his assertive approach. This combative stance earned him the unofficial title of the “real leader of the opposition” in the state.

A comprehensive review of Mr. Dhankhar’s political trajectory, particularly his tenure as Governor of West Bengal, reveals a consistent and defining characteristic: a strong inclination towards assertiveness and frequent confrontations with the state government. He consistently adopted an active, critical stance rather than a passive, ceremonial one. This established pattern of outspoken and challenging engagement serves as a significant precursor to his later conduct as Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. This continuity in his approach suggests that his subsequent clashes in the Rajya Sabha were not an isolated phenomenon or a deviation from his character, but rather a direct continuation of his inherent political style. His personality and approach to constitutional offices appear to be characterised by a strong, often vocal, and challenging posture, which would predictably lead to friction and controversy in any politically charged environment, especially when interacting with opposing political forces.

Jagdeep Dhankhar’s Political Career Milestones

The Vice-Presidential Tenure (2022-2025): Navigating the Rajya Sabha and Constitutional Debates

Jagdeep Dhankhar was sworn in as the 14th Vice President of India on August 11, 2022, following his nomination by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). He secured a decisive victory in the 2022 Vice-Presidential election, garnering 528 votes out of 710 valid votes, representing a 74.37% share, which marked the highest poll-victory margin since the 1992 election. A core aspect of the Vice President’s role is serving as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, a position Mr. Dhankhar held throughout his tenure.

His tenure as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was notably characterised by sharp exchanges and frequent high-drama confrontations with opposition leaders. He often faced criticism for perceived partisanship, with accusations that he acted more as a “cheerleader for the government” than a neutral presiding officer. These confrontations included his refusal to summon the Prime Minister for a discussion on the violence in Manipur.

A particularly contentious period was the Winter Session of 2023, which saw the unprecedented mass suspension of 146 opposition lawmakers, the largest in Indian legislative history, for insisting on a discussion about parliamentary security breaches. The opposition’s discontent culminated in an unprecedented no-confidence motion against him in December 2024, accusing him of “highly partisan” conduct, though the motion did not advance. He engaged in frequent verbal clashes with prominent opposition Members of Parliament, including Mallikarjun Kharge, Jairam Ramesh, Kapil Sibal, Derek O’Brien, Raghav Chadha, Sanjay Singh, and Jaya Bachchan.

Beyond parliamentary proceedings, Mr. Dhankhar was notably outspoken on matters concerning the judiciary. He publicly questioned the Supreme Court’s authority to review constitutional amendments, specifically invoking the ‘Basic Structure doctrine’. He openly criticised the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to nullify the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, describing it as a “glaring compromise” of the legislature’s authority. He questioned the fundamental principle of how any institution could strike down a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament. These remarks drew significant criticism from former Supreme Court judges and the Bar Council of India, who viewed them as undermining judicial independence and the essential separation of powers.

His tenure was also marked by several other notable controversies and public statements. During a convocation ceremony at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in December 2023, he was accused of veering into political territory, criticising the judiciary, civil society, and the media, and issuing warnings against “unelected institutions interfering” in parliamentary functioning. He faced criticism for allowing key pieces of legislation, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, and the Telecommunications Bill, 2023, to be passed in the Rajya Sabha “without adequate debate or discussion,” particularly during sessions where a large number of opposition MPs were suspended. In public speeches and interviews, he frequently employed terms like “motivated narratives,” “morally compromised media,” and “selective outrage ecosystem” to describe journalists, academics, and activists.

He openly praised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), describing it as a “global think tank” with an “unquestionable” role in nation-building. Furthermore, he made veiled criticisms of certain constitutional figures, which were widely interpreted as targeting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Despite these contentious aspects, Mr. Dhankhar also championed significant initiatives, emphasising Research and Development (R&D) as the “spinal strength” of the economy and nation, promoting economic nationalism with a call to be “vocal for local,” and lauding the heightened credibility and authenticity of the Padma Awards. He also frequently declared “Bharat’s ascent as a superpower,” citing the nation’s rapid progression.

The detailed accounts of Mr. Dhankhar’s Vice-Presidential tenure consistently reveal a pattern of partisan conduct, frequent clashes with the opposition, and outspoken views on politically sensitive topics such as judicial independence, the media, and civil society. This approach extended significantly beyond the traditional expectations of a neutral presiding officer and indicates a deliberate strategy to align the Vice President’s office more closely with the ruling party’s ideological positions. The fact that the opposition felt compelled to move a no-confidence motion against him underscores the widespread perception that he politicised the role.

This apparent politicisation could establish a new and potentially problematic precedent for the conduct of future Vice Presidents, potentially eroding the perceived neutrality and dignity of the office. It also signifies a deepening polarisation within India’s parliamentary system, where even high constitutional functionaries are increasingly viewed through a partisan lens, which could undermine the institutional checks and balances.

Mr. Dhankhar’s strong critiques of the judiciary, particularly concerning the ‘Basic Structure doctrine’ and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), were not merely academic or legal debates. These interventions reflected a specific ideological stance regarding the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, aligning with a political philosophy that seeks to assert parliamentary supremacy. His public praise for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) further solidified this ideological alignment. This analysis suggests that he actively utilised his constitutional platform to advance a particular political ideology, leading to accusations of “constitutional overreach”.

This highlights a fundamental tension between the constitutional mandate of the Vice President (as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, tasked with ensuring smooth legislative functioning and upholding the Constitution impartially) and the individual’s political background and deeply held ideological leanings. It raises critical questions about the extent to which a constitutional office holder can actively engage in ideological battles without compromising the perceived impartiality and institutional integrity of the office.

Key Controversies During Vice-Presidential Tenure

The Resignation: Stated Reasons vs. Political Speculation

Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar formally submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on July 21, 2025, and it was officially accepted the following day, July 22, 2025. His resignation letter explicitly articulated “health care” and the necessity to “abide by medical advice” as the reasons for his immediate departure, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution. In his letter, he also conveyed his profound gratitude to the President for her unwavering support, and extended thanks to the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, and all Members of Parliament for their cooperation and the warmth he received during his tenure.

Despite the official health explanation, opposition parties, particularly the Indian National Congress, swiftly questioned the timing and underlying motives of the resignation, alleging “far deeper reasons”. The resignation’s occurrence on the first day of the Monsoon session of Parliament, and just hours after Mr. Dhankhar had presided over the Rajya Sabha, appearing to be in “good jolly self”, fueled this widespread scepticism. Congress MP Jairam Ramesh highlighted a specific incident on July 21, 2025: Mr. Dhankhar had chaired a Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting of the Rajya Sabha at 12:30 PM, which was scheduled to reconvene at 4:30 PM. However, the Leader of the House, JP Nadda, and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju reportedly failed to attend the second meeting without personally informing Mr. Dhankhar. Ramesh suggested that this “deliberate absence” and Mr. Dhankhar’s taking “umbrage” might have been a significant contributing factor to his sudden decision.

Further speculation included suggestions of political pressure, a potential strategic move by the BJP to replace him with someone who could assist in upcoming Bihar elections, or even an attempt to exert pressure on Prime Minister Modi regarding the unwritten 75-year age rule for holding office. Some political commentators also linked the resignation to his active role in processing two impeachment motions against judges just a day prior to his resignation.

In contrast to the political speculation, Mr. Praveen Balwada, Mr. Dhankhar’s brother-in-law and an advocate, firmly dismissed claims of political pressure. He asserted that Mr. Dhankhar “never took pressure of any kind” throughout his career, having known him since college days. Balwada reiterated the health reasons, providing details of a stent implant procedure in March and persistent issues with low blood pressure that caused dizziness on multiple occasions. He suggested that Mr. Dhankhar, being a “workaholic” and highly sincere towards his work, must have concluded that it was becoming increasingly difficult to justify balancing both his health and his demanding professional responsibilities. Balwada also indicated that Mr. Dhankhar “honoured his family’s wishes” in making this decision.

Jairam Ramesh’s detailed account of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting, where senior ministers allegedly failed to attend a reconvened session and did not personally inform Mr. Dhankhar, leading to his “umbrage”, provides a concrete, immediate event that could have served as a catalyst for the resignation. This incident, if accurately portrayed, suggests a significant breakdown in communication, protocol, or respect within the government’s interaction with the Vice President. It moves the narrative beyond a purely personal health matter to a potential political slight, indicating deeper underlying issues of authority or deference.

This specific incident, if substantiated, transforms the resignation from a purely personal health matter into a politically charged event, strongly hinting at internal friction or a perceived lack of deference towards the Vice President from the ruling establishment. It could imply that Mr. Dhankhar’s characteristic assertiveness, which defined his tenure, might have eventually led to a point of irreconcilable differences or a perceived insult that precipitated his swift decision to resign.

The striking contrast between Mr. Dhankhar’s seemingly “good jolly self” while presiding over the Rajya Sabha just hours before his resignation and the immediate announcement citing health reasons creates a significant narrative contradiction. While his brother-in-law confirms ongoing health issues, including a stent implant and low blood pressure, the suddenness and timing of the resignation, especially after actively handling sensitive impeachment motions, suggest that health might have been a convenient official reason rather than the sole or immediate trigger. The description of him as a “workaholic” further complicates this, as such a trait would typically imply a strong commitment to duty that would resist early resignation unless under severe, immediate duress, whether health-related or political.

This apparent contradiction fuels the “deeper reasons” narrative prevalent in political discourse. It suggests that while health might have been a contributing factor, the abruptness of the decision points to a critical tipping point, possibly political in nature, that made immediate resignation unavoidable. It raises fundamental questions about the true nature of the “pressure” he might have faced, whether internal political dynamics or external circumstances, that led to such a swift and unexpected departure from a high constitutional office.

Key Dates and Events Surrounding Jagdeep Dhankhar’s Resignation

Political Reactions and Public Discourse on ‘X’

The resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar triggered a profound and immediate shift in the political discourse, particularly evident in the reactions from opposition parties. Previously, many opposition Members of Parliament, including prominent figures like Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Jairam Ramesh, had been vocal critics of Mr. Dhankhar’s conduct as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. They frequently accused him of partisanship, denying them opportunities to speak, and acting more like a “cheerleader for the government” than a neutral umpire. This culminated in an unprecedented impeachment motion filed against him. However, in the wake of his resignation, a dramatic pivot in their stance occurred.

Several opposition leaders, including Jairam Ramesh, publicly urged him to reconsider his decision, framing it as being “in the nation’s interest” and lamenting that the “kisanputra” (son of a farmer) was being denied a dignified farewell. Kapil Sibal, a senior lawyer and MP who had past clashes with Mr. Dhankhar, praised him as “nationalist and patriotic,” asserting that he bore no ill will. Other opposition leaders expressed genuine shock and concern, consistently suggesting that political motives, rather than solely health issues, lay behind the resignation. This shift, however, was not universally accepted within the opposition. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, for instance, fact-checked Jairam Ramesh’s claim that Mr. Dhankhar “took both the government and the opposition to task in equal measure,” reminding observers that the opposition had been compelled to file a no-confidence motion against him due to his perceived partisan conduct.

The response from the ruling BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was notably more muted. The coalition was reportedly taken by surprise by the suddenness of the move. Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted a brief message on X, wishing Mr. Dhankhar “good health” and acknowledging his service. However, this post was conspicuously described by Jairam Ramesh as a “non-post” that “added to the mystery” surrounding the departure. A notable absence of effusive praise or detailed commentary from most leading government figures was observed, a departure from the typical expressions of gratitude that accompany the departure of high-ranking constitutional office holders. Union Health Minister JP Nadda did counter Ramesh’s claim about the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting, stating that proper intimation had been given to Mr. Dhankhar’s office.

The resignation rapidly became a trending topic on the social media platform X, reflecting the immediate public and political engagement. Initial sentiment was heavily dominated by surprise and intense speculation about “deeper reasons” behind the sudden exit. The narrative centred around the “kisanputra” being denied a dignified farewell gained significant traction, particularly amplified by the Congress party. The alleged “BAC meeting incident” was widely discussed as a potential trigger, with many posts echoing Jairam Ramesh’s account of the events. Conversely, BJP MPs, such as Nishikant Dubey, countered opposition claims, accusing them of hypocrisy given their earlier attempts to impeach Mr. Dhankhar. The overall sentiment on X reflected a complex mix of genuine concern for Mr. Dhankhar’s health, political opportunism from various parties, and a deep-seated scepticism regarding official explanations, indicative of a highly polarised and charged political environment.

The most striking observation from the political reactions is the dramatic and rapid pivot by the opposition from being fierce critics, even moving an impeachment motion against Mr. Dhankhar, to suddenly urging him to reconsider his resignation and praising him as a “kisanputra”. This is not a mere change of heart but a calculated strategic manoeuvre. By expressing concern and even admiration for a figure they previously opposed, the opposition aims to leverage the ambiguity surrounding the resignation to question the ruling party’s conduct and portray Mr. Dhankhar as a victim or someone who was unfairly pushed out.

This narrative attempts to create a perception of internal strife or disrespect from the government towards its own appointee, thereby scoring political points. This strategic shift by the opposition indicates a clear attempt to capitalise on the unexpectedness and lack of transparency surrounding the resignation to gain political mileage. It highlights how political events, even seemingly personal ones like a resignation, are immediately framed and reframed within the broader political contest, often leading to contradictory public statements designed for tactical advantage rather than genuine sentiment.

The conspicuous absence of effusive praise or detailed commentary from the ruling BJP leadership, beyond a brief and somewhat perfunctory post from the Prime Minister, is highly significant. In Indian political tradition, the departure of a high-ranking constitutional office holder is typically accompanied by widespread tributes and expressions of gratitude from the ruling establishment. The muted response from the BJP suggests several possibilities: it could indicate genuine surprise within the party, a deliberate strategy to avoid fueling further speculation about the resignation’s true causes, or perhaps an implicit acknowledgment that Mr. Dhankhar’s highly assertive and often confrontational style, while beneficial in certain contexts, might have created internal discomfort or was no longer aligned with the party’s future strategic objectives.

This relative silence from the ruling party implies that Mr. Dhankhar’s resignation might be part of a larger, internal realignment within the BJP or the government. This could be linked to upcoming electoral strategies (such as the Bihar elections mentioned in, or the broader 2029 Lok Sabha elections mentioned in) or a desire for a less confrontational and more compliant presiding officer for the Rajya Sabha. It suggests that the ruling party is carefully managing the narrative to avoid any perception of internal discord or a forced resignation, while simultaneously preparing for a “major overhaul” in its leadership and governance strategy.

Constitutional Implications and the Path Forward

Mr. Dhankhar’s resignation has created a rare mid-term vacancy in the nation’s second-highest constitutional office. The Indian Constitution does not provide for an acting Vice-President to fill this void immediately. Unlike a Presidential vacancy, which mandates a fixed deadline of six months for a new election, there is no such rigid timeframe for a Vice-Presidential vacancy. The only constitutional requirement is that the election be held “as soon as possible” after the post falls vacant. The Election Commission of India is thus constitutionally mandated to announce the election process without delay, as the crucial constitutional post cannot be left vacant. Importantly, the individual elected to fill this vacancy will serve a full five-year term from the date of assuming office, rather than merely completing the remainder of Mr. Dhankhar’s unexpired tenure.

The Vice President is elected by an electoral college comprising members from both Houses of Parliament—the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha—including both elected and nominated members. Notably, state legislatures do not participate in this election. The election process employs a system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, with voting conducted by secret ballot. A key procedural aspect is that party whips are not valid for the Vice Presidential election, theoretically allowing individual MPs to vote against their party’s preferred choices. To be a candidate, an individual must be nominated by at least 20 Members of Parliament as proposers and another 20 MPs as seconders, along with a security deposit of Rs. 15,000. Given the current political arithmetic, the ruling BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) holds a clear majority in the electoral college, making it highly probable that their chosen candidate will win the election. Non-aligned parties collectively account for approximately 30 votes.

In the interim period, until a new Vice President is elected and assumes office, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha—currently Mr. Harivansh Narayan Singh—will preside over the proceedings of the Upper House.

The vacancy has immediately sparked a race for the next Vice President. The ruling alliance is expected to engage in internal discussions to identify suitable candidates, potentially drawing from a pool of current governors, senior party leaders, or serving Union ministers. Already, Bihar BJP leaders have publicly advocated for Chief Minister Nitish Kumar as a potential successor. Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh, a Janata Dal (United) MP, is also being discussed as a possible choice, given his perceived trust within the government. Some speculation has even arisen regarding disgruntled Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, though it remains uncertain whether the BJP would opt for an “outsider” for such a crucial constitutional post. The unexpected vacancy is also anticipated to trigger a “major overhaul” within the BJP and the government, potentially leading to a cabinet reshuffle as the party realigns its leadership and strategic objectives.

The Vice President’s role extends beyond ceremonial duties, as they also serve as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. This position is critical for the government’s legislative agenda, particularly with major bills like “One Nation, One Election” expected in the future. Given the BJP’s majority in the electoral college, the party is in a strong position to select a candidate who is not only aligned with its political and ideological agenda but also possesses the experience and ability to effectively manage the Upper House and facilitate legislative processes.

This is not merely about filling a constitutional vacancy but about securing a key strategic position that can significantly influence the pace and success of the government’s legislative priorities. The selection of the next Vice President will therefore be a highly strategic decision for the BJP, aimed at ensuring smoother parliamentary functioning and advancing its legislative and political goals ahead of the crucial 2029 Lok Sabha elections. It could signal a deliberate shift towards a more compliant or less confrontational presiding officer for the Rajya Sabha, ensuring fewer disruptions and more efficient passage of government bills, in contrast to Mr. Dhankhar’s often contentious tenure.

Unlike the Presidential vacancy, which mandates a strict six-month deadline for election, the Vice-Presidential vacancy only requires an election “as soon as possible”. This constitutional flexibility is not a mere procedural detail; it grants the ruling party significant strategic leeway. It allows them to time the election strategically, potentially aligning it with other political events (such as the upcoming Bihar elections mentioned in) or providing ample time to vet and select a candidate who best fits their evolving political calculus and future legislative needs.

This flexibility transforms a constitutional mandate into a political opportunity for strategic manoeuvring. This legal leeway means that the timing of the election and the ultimate choice of candidate will be heavily influenced by the ruling party’s broader political strategy. This includes electoral considerations, the desire to consolidate power, or the need to project a specific image, rather than being solely dictated by a rigid constitutional timeline. It underscores how constitutional provisions, when open to interpretation, can be utilised to serve political ends.

Vice-Presidential Vacancy: Constitutional Provisions and Election Process

Conclusion: A Legacy of Assertiveness and Unanswered Questions

Jagdeep Dhankhar’s tenure as Vice President of India from 2022 to 2025 was undeniably impactful, largely defined by his assertive style and outspoken views, particularly in his capacity as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. His consistent confrontations with the opposition and his public questioning of judicial independence became hallmarks of his term, building upon a similar combative record established during his preceding role as Governor of West Bengal. While he championed important initiatives such as promoting Research and Development, advocating for economic nationalism and the “vocal for local” ethos, and enhancing the credibility of the Padma Awards, his often contentious parliamentary conduct frequently overshadowed these contributions.

The primary lingering question following his departure revolves around the true reasons for his sudden resignation. Despite the official citation of health grounds, the timing and surrounding circumstances, particularly the alleged incident involving the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting, continue to fuel widespread speculation about underlying political pressures or internal discord within the government. His abrupt departure creates a significant political vacuum and triggers a crucial election for the next Vice President, with the ruling party strategically positioned to select a successor who aligns closely with its future legislative and political agenda.

The entire episode highlights the increasing politicisation of constitutional offices in India and the inherent challenges of maintaining institutional neutrality in an increasingly polarised political environment. It underscores the dynamic interplay between constitutional mandates, the personalities of political office holders, and the overarching strategies of political parties within India’s governance framework.

Mr. Dhankhar’s tenure, characterised by accusations of “partisan conduct”, “constitutional overreach”, and open ideological alignment with the ruling party, represents a significant departure from the traditional expectation of neutrality for the Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. This is not merely a reflection of his personal style but indicative of a broader and concerning trend where high constitutional offices are increasingly perceived as extensions of the ruling party’s political will.

His resignation, regardless of the precise cause, culminated a period where the office was actively engaged in political battles rather than strictly upholding its impartial constitutional mandate. This trend of politicisation could have profound and long-term implications for the institutional integrity and perceived impartiality of high constitutional offices in India. It risks normalising a more partisan role for the Vice President, potentially leading to further erosion of parliamentary decorum, deepening mistrust between the government and opposition, and ultimately weakening the crucial system of checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution.

The confluence of several factors—the unexpected timing of the resignation, the opposition’s dramatic shift in narrative, the ruling BJP’s notably muted response, and the broader context of upcoming significant elections (Bihar, 2029 Lok Sabha) and potential “major overhaul” within the BJP—suggests that Mr. Dhankhar’s resignation might be more than an isolated event. It could be a symptom or a catalyst for a larger political realignment or a strategic recalibration within the ruling establishment. This could involve bringing in a new figure deemed better suited for future legislative battles, projecting a different image for the Vice-President’s office, or addressing internal party dynamics, possibly hinted at by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s comments on age.

This implies that the resignation is not just an end to a particular tenure but potentially the initiation of a new phase in the BJP’s political strategy, particularly concerning parliamentary management, leadership succession, and the overall trajectory of governance. It suggests that the underlying reasons, whether predominantly health-related or political, are deeply intertwined with the ongoing political dynamics and future ambitions of the ruling party, making it a critical moment for political analysis.

Explore More News & Updates
Stay informed with the latest news, trends, and insights on MeritNews24 – your trusted source for reliable and up-to-date information.