Deepak Dwivedi
THE sudden departure of VicePresident Jagdeep Dhankhar has sent ripples through India’s political establishment, sparking widespread speculation and a dramatic shift in the opposition’s stance towards the former Vice-President.
Known for his outspoken criticism of the judiciary, Dhankhar abruptly resigned from his high office on July 21, citing “health reasons” and “medical advice”. His resignation has been accepted by President Droupadi Murmu.
Dhankhar’s resignation came just hours after he addressed the Rajya Sabha as its Chairman, notably discussing the impeachment motion against High Court Judge Yashwant Varma.
His exit has fuelled intense debate, with many political observers and opposition leaders questioning whether the stated health grounds are merely a euphemism for deeper political or institutional pressures.
Strong criticism
Throughout his tenure, Dhankhar had consistently used his prominent platform to articulate strong criticism of the judiciary, frequently focusing on issues of perceived judicial “overreach” and “lack of accountability”. He often described himself as a “foot soldier” of the judiciary, emphasising his legal background, yet challenged its functioning.
Among his most notable criticisms was his repeated questioning of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, a law passed with “near unanimity” by both Houses of Parliament. Dhankhar also criticised the judiciary for setting a timeline for the President to take decisions and acting as a ‘super Parliament’, asserting that the Supreme Court cannot fire a ‘nuclear missile’ at democratic forces”.
New grounds
The discovery of “half-burnt wads of cash” at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence in March 2025 gave Dhankhar new grounds to intensify his criticisms of judicial corruption and accountability. He openly questioned the absence of a First Information Report (FIR) in the case and termed the three-member in-house committee, formed by the then Chief Justice of India, as “unconstitutional,” arguing its findings lacked proper investigative tools.
The controversy surrounding Justice Varma escalated on the very first day of the Monsoon Session (July 21), when impeachment proceedings were formally initiated against him. While 63 opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice to Dhankhar, a similar memorandum bearing the signatures of 145 MPs was presented to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Just hours before his resignation, Dhankhar, as Rajya Sabha Chairman, addressed the House on the impeachment motion, meticulously explaining the procedural requirement that if the motion is presented in the two Houses on different dates, then the motion which is presented in the House first is taken into consideration. He then directed the Secretary-General to verify if a similar motion had been moved in the Lok Sabha. Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal confirmed that a similar notice has been submitted to the Speaker.
Procedural details
As the motions were initiated on the same day in both the Houses, Dhankhar’s emphasis on the procedural details underscored the importance of adhering to established norms in such a high-stakes matter. The established procedure for removing a judge is deliberately stringent, designed to uphold judicial independence while ensuring accountability for ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’.
Greater transparency
The timing of resignation has led opposition leaders to openly speculate about a “forced resignation”. Congress leaders, including Jairam Ramesh and Karti Chidambaram, who have accused Dhankhar of partisanship and even moved an impeachment motion against him, called for greater transparency, comparing it to “Soviet style resignations”.
The reaction from the ruling BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), however, has been subdued, with only a brief post from Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The immediate political repercussion of Dhankhar’s exit is the initiation of the process to elect a new Vice- President. The Constitution mandates that the vacancy be filled “as soon as possible”. With NDA having a comfortable majority, it may not be a problem to elect a successor of its choice.
