In the context of the unprecedented resolution initiated in the Rajya Sabha on December 10 by Opposition MPs from the INDIA bloc to oust Vice President and chairman of Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankar from his office, it is of critical significance to understand the constitutional provisions governing the procedure to do so and the legislative intent of the constituent assembly behind the procedure for such removal.
The fact that the INDIA bloc partners have taken such an unparalleled step on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the constitution makes it categorically imperative to delve into history and appreciate the nuances and finer aspects of the current developments.
Constitutional provision
Article 67(b) of the constitution prescribes that the vice president of India may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People. It is important to be mindful that the constitution has only the provision to remove the vice president of India and no separate provision is there to remove the chairman, Rajya Sabha, on the ground that the Article 64 of the constitution mandates that the vice president shall be the ex-officio chairman of the Council of States. It explains, therefore, that in case the resolution against Dhankar is adopted by both the Houses of parliament he would cease to be the vice president of India and hence as ex-officio chairman of the House.
Also read: Vice-President Dhankhar Is Not Expected to Take Part in the Modi Government’s Publicity
Article 67(b) also provides that no resolution for the purpose of this clause shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the resolution sponsored by the INDIA bloc partners on December 10 would pass the constitutional criteria of 14 days notice because the Rajya Sabha is getting adjourned by December 20 and in that eventuality the resolution may not be admitted at all.
First of its kind
It is of utmost importance, however, to bear in mind that never in the history of Rajya Sabha a resolution to throw out the vice president of India was ever initiated against Dhankar’s predecessors who among others included illustrious personalities such as S. Radhakrishnan, Zakir Hussain, K.R. Narayanan and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.
Contents of the resolution
The contents of the resolution as reported in the media reveal charges of Opposition parties that Dhankar is “explicitly partisan” in conducting the proceedings of the House, acting as an “impassioned spokesperson” of the Narendra Modi regime and compromising the ideal of neutrality associated with the office of the presiding officer by proclaiming in the House itself that he was “the Eklavya of the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]” some 25 years ago.
Issue of Rule 267
Partiality of Dhankar towards ruling the BJP MPs in Rajya Sabha in relation to Opposition MPs has been evidenced in applying Rule 267 of concerning suspension rules to discuss urgent issues. For instance, out of a total of 42 motions moved by Opposition party members under Rule 267, none have been accepted by Dhankhar. In a sharp contrast, whenever ruling party members moved for its suspension he immediately acceded to.
Aaam Admi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha moved 11 times and 14 times respectively for suspension of rules under Rule 267 on a variety of issues including alleged Gautam Adani matter but those were disallowed by Dhankar.
In contrast the record of Rajya Sabha reveals that during the tenure of chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu the issue of demonetisation was discussed after Rule 267 was invoked to suspend rules. The invocation of Rule 267 was permitted by chairman Shankar Dayal Sharma four times in two years, and in case of Bhairon Singh Shekhawat three times in one year and during the tenure of Mohammad Hamid Ansari it was done four times in three years spanning 2013 and 2016.
Other charges
The INDIA bloc accused Dhankhar of repeatedly interrupting Opposition members and making disparaging comments in response to their criticism of the government’s performance.
It is learnt that Opposition parties hold Dhankhar responsible for weaponising privilege motions to target them for their parliamentary activities and not allowing the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge to expose the falsehood in the statements uttered by Prime Minister Modi. The highly disparaging remarks made by Dhankar against the LoP also has been reportedly flagged by the Opposition parties in the notice
Trinamool Congress (TMC) deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha Sagarika Ghose is quoted in the media as saying that the notice against Dhankar “is a strong message to fight for parliamentary democracy. Nothing against individuals, this is a fight for institutions.”
She added: “This government is murdering parliament… The BJP and the government are misusing high constitutional offices and making them subservient to executive power… At stake is the integrity of our parliamentary democracy itself and the solemn constitutional rights of every representative of the people.”
A dog whistling vice president
In my article, “A Dog-Whistling Vice-President Diminishes the Dignity of His Office” published in The Wire it was flagged how Dhankar dismissed the basic structure of the constitution contrary to Supreme Court judgments repeatedly upholding it and even went to the extent of looking at the constitution from the perspective of one religion and claimed “…the values enshrined in it reflect the essence of Sanatana Dharma” which he described as the only path forward for humanity.
A vice president making such statements contrary to the constitution and constitutional values is quite shocking. Earlier this year, he unfairly accused the Opposition of destabilising the country on the floor of the House. In February 2023, Dhankar, among others, expunged remarks by some Opposition leaders that linked Prime Minister Modi with business tycoons Adani and Mukesh Ambani, and referred to the committee of privileges the issue concerning the disturbance of the proceedings of the House by some other Opposition MPs.
In 2023, The Indian Express, in its editorial following the incident scathingly observed, “By engaging in what looks like a partisan political exercise against the Opposition, V.P. Dhankar undermines the parliament, his office.” That Dhankar’s conduct attracted such a sharp editorial comment is an indicator of the standard he set while discharging his responsibilities as a presiding officer. All such outrageous remarks make the Opposition parties’ resolution against Dhankar very persuasive.
Legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly
It is instructive that B.R. Ambedkar’s explanation in the constituent assembly on the lack of trust on the vice president of India is getting amply resonated. When on December 29, 1948, the assembly discussed Article 56 of the draft constitution (corresponding to Article 67 of the constitution) concerning removal of the vice president, Ambedkar while replying to the debates referred to K.T. Shah’s amendment which specifically proposed for explicit provision in the constitution that among others, the vice president could be removed if there is a proven record of violating the constitution or committing bribery and corruption. Ambedkar then stated that resolution to remove the vice president expresses what he called ” Want of confidence” and described it as “…a very large phrase and is big enough to include any ground such as corruption, bribery, etc,”.
So the essence of what was stated by Ambedkar is reflected in the reported contents of the resolution against Vice President Dhankar.
As mentioned earlier Article 67(b) of the constitution prescribes that the vice president of India may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People.
The portion of the Article “…majority of all the then members of the Council” and the words in it “the then members” need explanation by referring to how Ambedkar made the constituent assembly understand it on December 29, 1948. He stated that, “…word “then” is important” and proceeded to add, it “….means all members whose seats are not vacant”. “It does not mean members sitting or present and voting,” he stated. “It is because of this provision,” he said, “that all members who are [the] members of parliament and whose seats are not vacant, that their votes also have to be counted, that we have said passed by a majority of the then members”.
It is amply clear the resolution of Opposition members for removal of Vice President Dhankar is in tune with the legislative intent of the constituent assembly.
S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.
