Veep successor watch: Political buzz grows after Dhankhar's resignation
Various theories have emerged regarding the reasons behind Dhankhar's resignation, with many citing alleged differences between him and the government over the proposed motion to remove two justices.
Dhankhar resigned from his post late on Monday, citing health reasons.
"To prioritise health care and abide by medical advice, I hereby resign as the Vice President of India, effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution," his resignation letter read.
On Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha was informed that the vice president's resignation had been accepted by President Droupadi Murmu, with the Ministry of Home Affairs issuing a notification stating that the resignation takes effect immediately.
While the exact reasons for Dhankhar's decision remain unclear, several names are already doing the rounds as potential candidates for the Vice Presidential election.
Among the frontrunners are Ramnath Thakur, Minister of State in the NDA Cabinet at the Centre and son of Bharat Ratna awardee and former Bihar Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur; Bihar Governor Mohammad Arif Khan; and former BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.
With Bihar heading to elections later this year, the name of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar—whose party JD(U) is part of the NDA governments at both the state and the Centre—has also resurfaced, as he has long been speculated as a possible contender.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
6 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
VHP calls for debate on retaining 'secular' and 'socialist' inserted into Preamble during Emergency
Addressing the media, the national organisational secretary of Vishwa Hindu Parishad said the makers of the Constitution had not supported the induction of the word 'secular' in the Preamble (of the Constitution).
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Persecuted Hindus from Bangladesh should apply under CAA'
Nagpur: Hindus who fled countries like Bangladesh to escape religious persecution should not remain in hiding; they must come out and apply under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The recent crackdown is not on Bengali-speaking people, as certain political elements may claim. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is reaching out to such Hindus to assist them apply under CAA. "Even certificates are being issued to them after confirming that they are Hindus," said VHP's organizing general secretary Milind Parande on Monday. The new law applies to persons of Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, and Parsi communities who reached India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 31, 2014. "Those who came later can also get citizenship through naturalisation," he said adding, "The recent crackdown is against illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, not generally against those who speak Bengali." Later, talking to TOI, Parande said it can be understood that those who fled these countries may not be able to produce the required documents needed in the CAA application. "The VHP is assisting them in dealing with such practical difficulties but in a legal manner," he said. Parande said in its central committee meeting held at Jalgaon last week, the VHP raised concerns over what he termed "conversion by churches, Islamic fundamentalism, Marxism, secularists and even profit-driven market forces". "There are certain global groups working to weaken the Hindu social fabric. Yet, the Hindus have remained resilient," he said adding the VHP also plans to start a campaign against drug addiction. VHP also expressed concern over an incident in the Lakadganj involving an alleged attack on a Hindu girl's family. # 'Review Secular & Socialist in Constitution' VHP leader Milind Parande backed the idea of reviewing the inclusion of the words "secular" and "socialist" in the preamble of the Constitution. Parande said at the time of framing the Constitution, even Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar and Rajendra Prasad, who later became the President, were not in favour of having the two words in the preamble. "This was because they did not want the Constitution to be bound by any doctrine. It was only added during the Emergency," he said. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sarkaryavaha Dattatreya Hosabale had raised a similar question recently.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Assent to bills: Tamil Nadu govt moves SC, says Presidential reference is 'appeal in disguise'
New Delhi, The Tamil Nadu government on Monday urged the Supreme Court to declare the Presidential reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by state assemblies as not maintainable and return it as unanswered, saying it is an "appeal in disguise". Assent to bills: Tamil Nadu govt moves SC, says Presidential reference is 'appeal in disguise' A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, which has sought the replies of the Centre and all states in a week, will consider the Presidential reference on Tuesday and would fix timelines and other procedural details for hearing. In an intervention application, the Tamil Nadu government said it is "filing the present application for directions from this court to declare that the Presidential Reference dated May 13, 2025 issued by her excellency, the President of India is not maintainable and to return the said reference as unanswered in whole, without prejudice to the arguments advanced by the Appellant before this Court". It said the President has made the above Presidential reference under the Article 143 of the Constitution of India seeking the opinion of this Court on 14 questions that include the interpretation of the powers of the governor under the Article 200 of the Constitution and the powers of the President under the Article 201 of the Constitution along with ancillary issues. "It is prima-facie evident that the present Presidential reference is nothing but an appeal in disguise to disturb the settled law and overrule the findings already pronounced by this Court due to which the present Presidential reference ceases to raise any such legitimate substantial questions of law leading to an expediency in obtaining the opinion of this Court. "Therefore, the Presidential reference dated May 13, 2025 deserves to be unanswered as a whole and liable to be returned," the state government said. On July 22, the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar observed that the issues raised in the Presidential reference will affect the "entire country". The Tamil Nadu government in its application further said the Presidential reference raises questions of law pertaining to interpretation of the powers of the governor and the President along with ancillary issues which have been directly answered by the Supreme Court in April 8 verdict in the case of State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu in an exhaustive manner. It said the Presidential reference was issued by the President merely one month after April 8, 2025 that is the date of pronouncement of the judgement. "A cursory view of the whereas clauses forming the Presidential reference would reflect that the above reference has been issued to overrule the decision and directions of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu judgement and make it clear that the above Presidential reference is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law as this court has no power to overrule its own judgements by way of Article 143," the plea said. The state government said the present Presidential reference is "headless and devoid of merit" and currently, no review or curative petition has been preferred by the governor of Tamil Nadu against the judgement of this court. Meanwhile, the Kerala government has also sought dismissal of the Presidential reference and said it cannot be used to overrule findings of law and facts in earlier judgments. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143 to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies. The President's decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of governor, President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. The verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
