Jagdeep Dhankhar quits as Vice President: What he said in Rajya Sabha today; judge impeachment, cash under seat
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
EW DELHI: Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday resigned as Vice President citing health reasons and said that he made the decision to 'prioritise health care' and act on 'medical advice.'
The announcement came just hours after Dhankhar, who also served as Rajya Sabha chairman, addressed the House and raised several serious issues, including the impeachment motion against a high court judge Yashwant Varma and an incident involving unclaimed cash found under a seat in the House.
In a detailed statement, Dhankhar informed the members that he had received a motion for the removal of a high court judge Yashwant varma under Article 217(1)(b) read with Article 218 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
'It is signed by more than 50 members of the Council of States and thus it meets the numerical requirement,' he said.
RS | Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar's Remarks | 04:06 pm - 04:19 pm | 21 July, 2025
Explaining the technical procedure involved in such cases, Dhankhar pointed out the constitutional requirement of whether such motions are presented in one or both Houses of Parliament on the same day. 'If the motion is presented in the two houses on different dates, then the motion which is presented in the house first that alone is taken into consideration and the second motion gets nonjurisdictional,' he said.
He directed the Secretary-General to verify if a similar motion had been moved in the Lok Sabha. The Law Minister, present in the House, confirmed that over 100 members had submitted such a motion there as well.
Dhankhar also referred to an earlier motion from December concerning a another judge of the Allahabad high court Shekhar Yadav, PTI reported. He said the motion was initially signed by 55 members, but a scrutiny revealed that one MP had signed twice, bringing the total valid count down to 54.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
'The result was that the representation, the motion indicated there are 55 members seeking removal. But actually it was not 55, it was only 54,' he noted.
He said the process for verifying signatures and authentication is still ongoing.
He added that one MP, whose signature appeared twice, denied having signed the motion more than once. 'If a motion carries two signatures of the same member and the honorable member declines that he has not signed at two places but he has signed only at one place, the matter becomes serious and culpable,' Dhankhar said, while stressing the need for Parliament to uphold transparency and integrity.
'This August House has to set very high standards. If we do not live up to the highest expectations of the people, then we'll be putting things under the carpet and not subjecting them to deep investigation,' he said.
In a startling revelation, Dhankhar said that 'on seat number 222 a bundle of rupees 500 notes was found.' He added, 'What is more surprising and deeply concerning is not that a pad of notes was found but no one has owned it.
No one has claimed it. This is quite serious.' He said the matter would be referred to floor leaders for further discussion and direction.
Reacting to Dhankhar's resignation, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said, 'I wish him the best of health, because I am saddened, because I have a very good relationship with him. I have known him for 30-40 years. We were paired with each other. We have appeared against each other in matters.
We have a bonhomie between us that is quite unique. I always respected him, and he always respected me. He has been to some family occasions of ours, and I am saddened and I hope that he is healthy and has a long, long life, and I wish him well.
We may have had differences, in respect to our political views, or on opinions, but at a personal level, we had a very strong bond. Whenever I needed time to speak in the House, I met him personally in his chamber, and he never refused me, and gave me a little more time than is otherwise available to independent members of Parliament.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
HC issues notice to govt over Greater Bengaluru Authority Act
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has issued a notice to the state government and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of the newly implemented Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, which proposes the formation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). The PIL was filed by noted filmmaker T.S. Nagabharana and others. The matter was heard on Monday by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi. After hearing preliminary arguments, the court directed the state and the BBMP to file their objections within four weeks. Senior advocate M.B. Nargund, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Act violates the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which was enacted to strengthen local self-governance through urban local bodies. He contended that the state government is undermining the constitutional mandate by attempting to centralize control over municipal administration, effectively bypassing elected representatives. The petitioners have also requested the court to direct the government to conduct BBMP elections within three months. The petition expresses concern that under the new GBA structure, elected municipal representatives will be sidelined, with legislative and executive powers being extended to Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly. It claims that municipal plans and decisions will now require GBA approval, thereby reducing the autonomy of the BBMP and weakening the role of locally elected leaders. Additionally, the PIL criticizes the lack of criteria ensuring that GBA members are local residents or elected representatives. It argues that this could lead to a disconnect between decision-makers and local communities, undermining accountability and citizen representation in urban governance. The petition also warns against dividing Bengaluru into multiple administrative zones under the GBA without conducting a scientific urban study. It points out that similar attempts in other cities have led to administrative failures and that issues such as population imbalance and social disparity could emerge. The move to appoint a Chief Commissioner over the entire GBA, while placing elected mayors and councillors under their authority, is seen as a blow to the democratic structure of urban governance. The High Court will take up the matter further once the state and BBMP submit their responses.
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
How different constitutional drafts imagined India
India's path to becoming a republic was paved with a range of constitutional visions articulated by diverse political thinkers and movements before the adoption of the 1950 Constitution. Between 1895 and 1948, various drafts were proposed reflecting contrasting ideologies — from early liberalism to Gandhian decentralism to radical socialism. These five key constitutional drafts that preceded the final Constitution offer insights into differing interpretations of sovereignty, governance, economic justice, and cultural identity. Early constitutional visions The Constitution of India Bill, 1895, attributed anonymously but often linked to early nationalists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, was one of the earliest efforts to frame a constitution for self-rule within the British Empire. Containing 110 articles, this draft proposed representative government, individual rights, legal equality, and a clear separation of powers. It emphasised civil liberties such as freedom of speech, the right to property, and equality before the law, setting forth a legalistic and liberal vision inspired by British constitutional models. It was more an aspiration for dominion status than a call for complete independence. In contrast, M.N. Roy's Constitution of Free India: A Draft (1944), created under the Radical Democratic Party, was grounded in the philosophy of radical humanism and advocated a participatory form of democracy. Roy envisioned a federal India composed of linguistically organised provinces and promoted popular sovereignty as the bedrock of governance. His draft introduced the right to revolt as a safeguard against tyranny and featured a robust Bill of Rights encompassing civil and socio-economic guarantees. Citizens' committees were proposed to ensure grassroots participation, making Roy's vision strikingly ahead of its time in its emphasis on decentralisation, transparency, and social accountability. This document went well beyond traditional liberalism, promoting direct democratic control and economic equity. A distinctive feature of Roy's draft was its rejection of parliamentary sovereignty in favour of a constitutionally entrenched republic where citizens, not legislators, were the ultimate locus of power. Roy's insistence on institutionalising political education, through mechanisms such as citizens' committees, highlighted his commitment to transforming subjects into active citizens. The draft was also unique in its clarity and precision: the Preamble defined the republic as a 'free, secular, federal, and democratic' polity, and the structure of government envisioned checks against bureaucratic centralism through provincial autonomy and public participation. Importantly, Roy's draft placed economic and social rights on equal footing with civil liberties — anticipating the eventual Fundamental Rights–Directive Principles split in the 1950 Constitution. Yet unlike the non-justiciable nature of the Directive Principles, Roy's socio-economic rights were enforceable and binding. Homogenous yet secular The Constitution of the Hindusthan Free State Act (1944), associated with nationalist right-wing circles such as the Hindu Mahasabha, presented a sharply contrasting perspective. It proposed a unitary state structure and declared India a sovereign 'Hindusthan Free State,' emphasising cultural unification through one language, one law, and one national culture. Yet, contrary to prevailing assumptions, the draft did explicitly guarantee religious freedom and equal treatment across castes and creeds. It affirmed freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion subject to public order and morality. It barred the State from endowing any religion or discriminating based on religious belief. The draft also explicitly rejected any state religion for the Hindusthan Free State or its provinces and prohibited the use of public funds for sectarian purposes. These provisions underscore a commitment to formal secularism and non-discrimination in public employment and education, despite the document's culturally homogenising tone and emphasis on national unity. The juxtaposition of these liberal guarantees with an overarching nationalist framework reflects the tensions within the ideological thrust of the draft. In addition, the 1944 draft was one of the few to contain an explicit reference to the right of secession, stating that provinces could opt out of the Union under certain conditions — an unusual feature given its otherwise unitary orientation. It also mandated the state to promote 'moral and spiritual values,' thus embedding a civilisational mission into its constitutional logic. Its provisions for emergency powers and the duties of citizens echoed a strong state-centric ethos, while still including democratic processes such as direct election to the legislature and regular judicial review. Decentralism to socialist democracy On a very different note, the Gandhian Constitution for Free India, drafted in 1946 by Shriman Narayan Agarwal with a foreword by Mahatma Gandhi, sought to ground India's constitutional framework in indigenous traditions and moral values. This draft was built upon Gandhi's principles of non-violence, trusteeship, and rural self-sufficiency. It proposed a confederation of self-sustaining village republics (gram swaraj) as the basic unit of governance. Rejecting both industrial capitalism and Western legalism, the Gandhian model envisioned decentralised, minimalist governance led by ethical self-regulation rather than law enforcement. With its strong focus on khadi, agriculture, and cottage industries, it aimed to create a self-reliant, spiritually grounded republic, though critics found it impractical for governing a complex modern state. Strikingly, however, the draft included a provision for the right to bear arms — a somewhat ironic inclusion in a constitution guided by Gandhian non-violence. Article 6 of the draft proclaimed that 'every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Legislature,' revealing a pragmatic concession to the need for self-defence or resistance, even within a pacifist framework. This dissonance between the ideal of ahimsa and the constitutional recognition of arms underscores the tensions inherent in attempting to reconcile ethical philosophy with the imperatives of statecraft. By 1948, the Socialist Party, under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, offered its Draft Constitution of the Republic of India as a counter-proposal to the official draft prepared by the Constituent Assembly. This document was firmly rooted in Marxist and democratic socialist thought, advocating the nationalisation of all major industries, banks, and key services. It called for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and proposed land reforms and workers' control over factories. This socialist draft envisioned a unicameral legislature composed of representatives from key social groups —workers, peasants, and intellectuals — thus rejecting the traditional liberal representative model in favour of a class-based system. It went further to assert that all land and natural resources were national property, and that planning would be conducted by a Central Planning Commission accountable to the legislature. Strikingly, the draft also offered an early commitment to gender equality and prohibited caste discrimination in any form. Civil liberties were acknowledged, but the document prioritised economic democracy, with socio-economic rights taking precedence over procedural safeguards. While it was bold in its redistributive commitments, the draft was less detailed in its administrative and judicial architecture, assuming that radical economic transformation would organically support political democracy. Comparative analysis When viewed comparatively, these drafts reflect divergent paths for India's future republic. The 1895 Bill and Roy's draft both championed democracy, but Roy's version expanded it through mechanisms like the right to revolt and participatory governance, departing significantly from the legalistic, elite-centred liberalism of the earlier proposal. Centralisation versus decentralisation is another crucial axis of comparison. While the Hindusthan Free State Act and the Socialist Party draft leaned towards a strong centralised authority to preserve national unity or effect economic restructuring, Roy's and the Gandhian drafts were deeply committed to decentralised governance, albeit in different ways — Roy through institutional federalism and democratic oversight, and Gandhi through autonomous village self-rule grounded in moral authority. Economically, the spectrum ranged from the minimalist and agrarian Gandhian model, to Roy's emphasis on democratic economic planning, to the Socialist Party's full-fledged state socialism. The Hindusthan Free State draft, while largely silent on economic redistribution, offered a more complex picture than often presumed — it prioritised national cohesion but enshrined specific liberal protections around religious freedom and equality. Meanwhile, the 1895 Bill reflected an absence of economic radicalism, concerned primarily with civil liberties and political representation. Cultural and identity politics also played out markedly differently. The Hindusthan Free State draft projected a homogenised, majoritarian cultural identity, in contrast to the pluralistic and secular ethos implicit in Roy's draft and the Socialist Party's vision. The Gandhian model, while rooted in Indian traditions, emphasised unity through moral and communal harmony rather than cultural uniformity. On civil liberties, the 1895 Bill and Roy's draft were strongest, both incorporating detailed rights frameworks. The Socialist Party draft prioritised economic rights over political ones, whereas the Gandhian draft focused more on duties and community values than on formal rights. The Hindusthan Free State draft, while ideologically nationalist, nevertheless provided robust constitutional guarantees for religious freedom and non-discrimination, challenging the assumption that it was devoid of liberal principles. In all, these constitutional drafts capture a vibrant pre-independence debate on the nature of the Indian state, reflecting ideological diversity and differing assumptions about governance, society, and citizenship. Though none of these drafts were adopted wholesale, elements from each filtered into the 1950 Constitution. Roy's ideas on decentralisation and rights, the Gandhian notion of panchayati raj, the Socialist commitment to economic justice, and even the legalistic structure of the 1895 Bill all left their mark. Their greatest contribution, however, may lie in showcasing the democratic imagination at play even before the republic was born — a testament to India's rich constitutional legacy and the multitude of futures it once contemplated.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Tharoor may succeed Dhankar as next V-P
Dubai: Shashi Tharoor as the next Vice-President of India? If so, does it mean a final parting for Tharoor and the party he currently represents, the Indian National Congress? If the buzz on Indian social media channels – and talk within the country's political circles – are anything to go by, Tharoor stands a good chance to be elevated to the role of 'second citizen'. The speculation comes as the incumbent VP of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar surprised all by announcing late last night (July 21) that he's stepping down from the role. A new candidate must be elected within the next 60 days, according to the rules, according to The Gulf News report. Tharoor's name is reportedly high on the list of possible names to replace Dhankhar, with a decision expected soon. Now, even before Dhankar made the surprise move – he's stepping down because of health issues – Tharoor had been mooted as a possible 'future' VP of the country. Now that future is likely to happen a lot sooner, if all the speculation is based on facts. Tharoor is currently a Member of Parliament from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in Kerala, having won a narrow victory in the 2024 elections. But what he has been doing in recent weeks is what's fueling the fevered speculation about Tharoor as the next VP pick. Tharoor has been one of the more vocal proponents of India's stance on 'Operation Sindoor' in trips to the US and elsewhere. And that's brought him visibly closer to the BJP government - and sharing quite the rapport with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Three more names are doing the rounds. Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. The JDU leader's name is doing the rounds as reportedly, the BJP is looking to name one of its own as Bihar's chief ministerial candidate ahead of the state polls. Union Health Minister and BJP President Jagat Prakash Nadda. A BJP veteran, he is known to be close to PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. JDU MP and Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha Harivansh Narayan Singh . As per the rules of the Constitution, Singh took over the duties of Rajya Sabha chairman (VP) starting today (July 22). He shares cordial relations with both Nitish Kumar and PM Modi, making him a prime contender.
