'An Ideological Battle': Why India Bloc Fielded Sudershan Reddy In VP Race
The Vice-Presidential election is all set to witness a contest that, while numerically tilted towards the ruling NDA, is being framed by the Opposition INDIA bloc as an ideological battle. Despite the clear numbers in Parliament — with the NDA commanding 293 votes against the Opposition's 249 — the INDIA bloc has chosen to field former Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy as their candidate. For them, this contest is less about arithmetic and more about symbolism.
A joint statement issued by the INDIA bloc declared that 'the Vice-Presidential election is an ideological battle," underlining that Reddy embodies 'the values that shaped our freedom movement." Senior leaders argue that the decision to contest was never in doubt. 'Not fighting would have meant handing over a win on a platter to the NDA," a source said, adding that the Opposition wanted to send a message: in a political battlefield, it is vital to resist rather than surrender.
The choice of candidate was deliberate. The INDIA bloc needed someone who could represent two core values — a defender of the Constitution and a figure acceptable across parties. In Sudershan Reddy, they believe they have found both. A retired judge of the Supreme Court, Reddy has a long record of judgments upholding civil liberties. He has served as Lokayukta of Goa and as head of the Human Rights Commission, besides leading the caste survey committee in Telangana. For the Opposition, this record makes him an ideal candidate to be projected as a protector of rights, a voice of the common citizen, and someone who stands firmly to ensure that 'Samvidhan khatre mein nahin hai (Constitution is not in danger)."
The INDIA bloc also sees this election as an opportunity to contrast its choice with the ruling NDA's nominee, CP Radhakrishnan. With Radhakrishnan's long-standing links to the RSS, the Opposition plans to frame the election as a contest of ideas — a battle between defending the Constitution and endorsing an ideology they have consistently opposed. Radhakrishnan's reference to the Prime Minister and Home Minister as 'beloved" in his first remarks after being nominated has further sharpened the Opposition's resolve to challenge him.
The decision to field Reddy has also had a ripple effect within the alliance. The Aam Aadmi Party, which had walked out of the INDIA bloc earlier, has agreed to come on board for this election, a move insiders say was facilitated by the Trinamool Congress. The Congress, meanwhile, hopes to exploit regional ties by persuading members of the YSR Congress, based in Reddy's home state, to reconsider their support for the NDA. While the ruling coalition is confident of YSRCP's backing, sources in the Opposition claim that conversations are ongoing to test the waters.
Beyond the immediate election, the INDIA bloc views this as the first major battle in the Rajya Sabha. Their hostility towards the outgoing Vice President, Jagdeep Dhankhar — against whom they had moved a failed impeachment notice — has carried forward into this contest. To them, starting their resistance by confronting another nominee with a strong RSS background is both strategic and symbolic.
For the INDIA bloc, therefore, this election is not just about numbers on the floor but about drawing a political line. By backing Sudershan Reddy, they are attempting to frame the contest as a referendum on the Constitution itself — and on the ideology they claim threatens it.
view comments
First Published:
August 19, 2025, 15:45 IST
News politics 'An Ideological Battle': Why India Bloc Fielded Sudershan Reddy In VP Race
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Loading comments...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Doing more and differently must be mantra of India-Russia ties: Jaishankar
India and Russia should come out with a creative and innovative approach to confront complex geopolitical challenges, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said on Wednesday amid increasing strains in New Delhi's ties with Washington over its purchase of Russian crude oil. Jaishankar made the remarks at a meeting with Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov in Moscow. In his televised opening remarks, the external affairs minister said India and Russia should continuously diversify and expand their "agenda" of cooperation including by diversifying the bilateral trade basket and through more joint ventures. "Doing more and doing differently should be our mantras," he said. The comments came against the backdrop of a downturn in relations between India and the US after President Donald Trump doubled tariffs on Indian goods to a whopping 50 per cent including a 25 per cent additional duties for India's purchase of Russian crude oil. The external affairs minister arrived in Moscow on Tuesday on a three-day visit. The Jaishankar-Manturov talks were held under the framework of India-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological, and Cultural Cooperation (IRIGC-TEC). The meeting was aimed at preparing grounds for Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to India later this year. Elaborating on the importance of India-Russia ties in the context of current geopolitical upheaval, Jaishankar made specific suggestions to further consolidate the engagement, especially in the economic sphere. "The various working groups and sub groups could perhaps take a more creative and innovative approach towards their respective agendas. The challenges posed by the larger landscape that I mentioned require us to do so," he said. The external affairs minister said both sides should continuously diversify and expand their agenda through mutual consultation. "This will help us tap into full potential of our trade and investment ties. We should not get stuck on a beaten track," he said Jaishankar also called for setting "quantifiable targets and specific timelines" to achieve more in expanding the ties between the two countries. "I would urge that we set ourselves some quantifiable targets and specific timelines so that we challenge ourselves to achieve more, perhaps even surpass what we set out to do," he said. "Each working Group and each sub Group could apply itself to setting of targets and see what we could achieve by the next session of the IRIGC-TEC," he said. "For example, if you are looking at trade barriers, could we pick a certain number and make a commitment? If we have agreed to a certain proposal, can we set a firm timeline for that?" he said. Jaishankar also pitched for a "coordination mechanism" between the business forum and the different working groups of the IRIGC to ensure a two-way flow of ideas. "We will like the IRIGC to become even more result-oriented, relevant and readily available to the business communities of the two sides," he said.
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Panel backs law for SC, ST, OBC quota in private varsity admissions
A parliamentary panel has recommended 27%, 15% and 7.5% reservation for OBC, SC and ST students, respectively, in private higher education institutions, noting the 'considerably low' number of OBC students and 'abysmally low' number of SC and ST students in select private institutions. Data provided by three of the four private Institutions of Eminence (IoEs) — BITS-Pilani, OP Jindal Global University, Shiv Nadar University — to the panel showed less than 1% of students belonged to the ST category in each of the institutions. Citing 'substantial' annual fees in private universities, the panel underlined the need for the State to take steps through legislation to accommodate students from these categories. Article 15(5) of the Constitution empowers the State to include private aided and unaided institutions of higher education in the scheme of reservations, it stated, adding that private institutions are currently not legally obliged to implement reservation policies. The committee called for implementing Article 15(5) in full across the country through legislation by Parliament, to match the reservation with the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act of 2006 applicable on centrally-funded institutions like IITs, IIMs, and central universities. '…in the interest of fairness, any introduction of reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private HEIs must be fully covered financially by the Government,' the committee noted, recommending a model similar to reimbursements provided to private schools by the government for 25% reservation. The panel recommended that the governments should allocate dedicated funds for private HEIs to increase seats, build infrastructure, and hire faculty in institutions implementing reservations, ensuring that there is no reduction in general category seats. The Department of Higher Education of the Union Ministry of Education told the committee that it is the responsibility of the state governments to make suitable legislative provisions for providing reservation in higher education institutions established by them, since private universities are established by Acts of state legislatures. The department referred to All India Survey of Higher Education data for 2022-23 which shows that students in the SC category comprise 15.5% (67.87 lakh students) of the total student enrolment in government and private higher education institutions (4.38 crore), while this figure is 6.4% (28.25 lakh students) for ST category students, and 38.9% (1.7 crore students) for OBC category students.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Government: Governor can scrap bill by withholding assent
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Amid conflicts between governors and opposition-led governments in states, the Centre on Wednesday told Supreme Court that if a governor, in rare and extraordinary circumstances, chooses to withhold assent to a bill passed by a state assembly, the bill gets scrapped. Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta had to labour a good part of the day before a five-judge Constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar to explain the sweeping power conferred on governors through Article 200 of the Constitution. The proposition, which the SG said, is backed by two five-judge SC bench judgments categorically stating that if a governor exercised the option of withholding assent, then the bill "falls through", evoked questions from a bench that was clearly alive to frequent stalemates between governors and state govts over indefinite pendency of bills with the former. Mehta said on a bill, the governor has options of granting assent, withholding assent, reserving it for the President's consideration or returning it to the assembly with suggestions for modification. "Once he declares he has withheld assent, the bill falls through. The governor then cannot exercise any of the other three options," he said. "The governor can simpliciter withhold assent ...if he believes the bill is unconstitutional or beyond any remedial changes, in which case the bill would 'fall through' or lapse as has been observed in several SC judgments by five-judge benches. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo " Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that the Constitution fixes no timeline for governors, in exercise of their plenary powers, to choose any of the four options. "The constitutional provision conferring such powers on the governor can only be amended by Parliament and the judiciary cannot encroach on the legislative domain in the guise of interpretation," Mehta said in what appeared to be a challenge aimed at the verdict of a two-judge bench fixing deadlines for governors and the President to take a call on bills sent to them for assent. CJI Gavai said similar arguments were advanced by ruling dispensations when it came to SC directing the speaker to decide within a timeframe petitions on disqualification of MLAs under the anti-defection law. For the sake of democracy, SC has fixed timelines for speakers in such cases, he said. Mehta, however, argued that the two cases are not alike since the speaker, while adjudicating petitions under the anti-defection law, acts as a tribunal and not in his/her constitutional capacity. It is a settled law that as a tribunal he is amenable to the jurisdictions of HCs and SC, he further argued. The SG said discretionary power to 'withhold assent to a bill' is one of the few areas, delineated by the Constitution, where the governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers of the state. "Because no council of ministers would advise the governor to withhold assent to a bill, yet that power is specifically given by the Constitutio," he said. The SG cited 10 illustrative situations where the governor would be well within his discretionary powers to withhold assent to a bill to render it ineffective. He said, for instance, if a border state enacts a law allowing citizens of a neighbouring country free entry into the state, the governor would be justified in withholding assent.
