Hours after members of the opposition INDIA bloc moved a notice to remove Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju called it a “diversionary tactic” and said that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has the majority in parliament to reject it.
Opposition members of the INDIA alliance submitted a notice to remove Dhankhar on Tuesday (December 10) citing partisan behaviour and not allowing opposition voices to be heard. Hours after the notice was submitted, Rijiju condemned the 60 members who had signed the notice, and said that the government is proud of the vice president who works in an “impartial” manner.
“The NDA government has the numbers. All the majority members of the parliament have confidence in the vice president. We are happy with his work,” said Rijju.
The minister then went on to say that the question is not about accepting the notice but about its integrity.
“We have no issues in accepting the notice. It is not about the acceptance or discussion on the notice. It is a question of integrity and thought behind taking such condemnable steps taken by the Congress and other members. We are proud of the honourable vice president of India. He has been extremely professional and impartial,” said Rijiju.
The ruling party has been mentioning reports by the French outlet Mediapart on Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), to level these accusations at Congress. On December 8, as reported by The Wire, the outlet condemned the BJP for “exploiting” its reporting and stated that there are “no available facts” to support allegations of a conspiracy involving the US state department, US billionaire George Soros and the Indian opposition aimed at “destabilising” the government as alleged by the saffron party.
“One of the points mentioned in the petition is that the vice president has praised RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh). RSS is a proud nationalist organisation of this country. You can praise any organisation in India as long as it is genuine and not illegal. I fail to understand why the Congress has taken exception to praising the RSS. This attitude shows the Congress and its allies are bereft of any agenda. This is only diversionary tactics to get away from the exposure of the links between the Congress, George Soros and OCCRP,” Rijiju added.
“The Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar hails from a poor kisan family. From the Jat community he is the first person to become the vice president. He has consistently spoken about farmers’ welfare and the country’s welfare both inside and outside parliament. He guides us. We respect him, he is very knowledgeable and a noble person. We are proud of him as the vice president,” he said.
Rijiju added that while the NDA government has the majority in parliament, the notice will be “rejected.”
“This notice served by the Congress and some of its allies must be rejected and will be rejected and we will ensure that this kind of action will not be accepted by the House,” he said.
The notice moved by the opposition is the first against any vice president. While resolutions have been moved to remove the Lok Sabha Speaker, no such resolution has come in India’s parliamentary history where the Rajya Sabha chair has sought to be removed. Under Article 64, the vice president functions as the ex-officio chairman of the Council of States.
Under Article 67(b) of the constitution, “a vice-president 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; but 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.”
According to P.D.T. Achary, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, as there is no precedent for removal of the vice president, recourse may have to be taken by going to the Lok Sabha.
“There is no precedent. Rajya Sabha rule book does not contain any procedure of removal of the chairman. All we have is provision in Article 67. It does not contain details about conditions. In the absence of such details you have to perhaps go to the Lok Sabha which has provision for removal of the Speaker,” he said.
“In the Lok Sabha you have to give 14 days notice and the notice should contain specific charges against the speaker. So the general practice if there is no rule in the Rajya Sabha to deal with a particular situation then they can take recourse to the Lok Sabha for procedural details. If you follow the Lok Sabha rules for the removal of the speaker that means specific charges have to be there. But there is no provision for rejecting the notice(for resolution to remove the Rajya Sabha Chair). Because it is a Constitutional provision and Article 67 does not say that the resolution can be rejected.”
While the notice has been submitted on December 10, it is unlikely that it will come up in this session. The winter session is scheduled to end on December 20. However, according to Achary, such a notice will not lapse because it is a constitutional provision.
“This does not lapse because it is a constitutional resolution. It is not linked to a particular session and is not part of the session as such. It is a notice to move a resolution for the removal of the Vice President of India. Here only 14 days’ notice has to be given, which only means it cannot be taken up before 14 days,” he said.
