Opposition Plans Farewell Dinner For Jagdeep Dhankhar After Shock Resignation: Sources
Opposition parties have invited former vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar for a farewell dinner days after his shock resignation, sources have said.
Mr Dhankhar's resignation, publicly attributed to health reasons, followed a week of political turbulence. The 74-year-old did not get a chance to deliver a farewell speech -- an issue taken up by Opposition parties who have demanded a speech in the Rajya Sabha Working Advisory Committee meeting.
To give more weight to the issue, the Opposition parties have organised a dinner to give Mr Dhankhar a proper send-off. Sources, however, say that it is unlikely that the former vice president will accept the offer.
The chain of events leading to the resignation began with a controversial decision taken by Mr Dhankhar in his capacity as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. On Monday, Mr Dhankhar accepted a motion from opposition MPs seeking the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, a High Court judge at the centre of a corruption investigation after large sums of cash were recovered from his residence.
The Centre had prepared a separate motion to initiate proceedings against Justice Varma in the Lok Sabha. Signatures from opposition MPs had already been secured, and it was the government's intention to lead the charge on the issue to maintain narrative control. Mr Dhankhar's acceptance of the opposition-led Rajya Sabha motion appeared to preempt that effort.
Government sources revealed that the Prime Minister was immediately briefed. A high-level meeting was held that evening involving senior ministers. The MPs were then asked to sign a counter-motion and to remain stationed in Delhi for the next four days. Shortly after being informed of the government's response plan, Mr Dhankhar submitted his resignation.
The Election Commission on Friday appointed Rajya Sabha Secretary General PC Mody as the returning officer for the election to the office of the vice president.
According to Article 68(2) of the Constitution, there is no fixed timeline within which the Vice Presidential election must be held in the event of a resignation. The provision mandates that the election be conducted "as soon as possible."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
MHA says more facial recognition CCTVs to be installed in Delhi
New Delhi Security is being strengthened in the run-up to Independence Day. (Representative photo) Select parts of Delhi will be covered with facial recognition-enabled closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras as part of the ministry of home affairs' 'Safe City Project', the ministry said in a written response in Rajya Sabha to a question by Trinamool Congress (TMC) Parliamentarian Saket Gokhale. It stated that the project aims to enhance urban security and surveillance infrastructure, including the establishment of an Integrated Command, Control, Communication & Computer Centre (C4I). The 'Safe City Project', funded by the Centre, aims to ensure technology-enabled enhanced policing and better security, especially for women, and costs around ₹798 crore, officials associated with the programme said. This involves the setting up of command and control centres, with facilities for video analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and facial recognition. The ministry stated that the facial recognition system will be used to monitor 'suspected persons/criminals', and that its operation is governed by Standing Order No. Tech. & PI/04/2022, issued by Delhi Police on June 9, 2022. In August 2024, Delhi Police procured 700 facial recognition CCTV cameras to ensure robust security arrangements for the Independence Day celebrations in the city. These cameras were installed in and around the north and central districts, especially covering the Red Fort, from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered his Independence Day speech, to monitor VVIP movement and keep a close eye on suspicious activities. Delhi Police officers said that presently, there are nearly 25,000 CCTV cameras installed by them under various schemes, including the Safe City Project, besides installations by other agencies, such as Indian Railways and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The city police's C4I has a facial recognition software (FRS) database of around 350,000 criminals with facial details. 'The 10,000 CCTV cameras that we will be installing under the Safe City Project will all be dynamic cameras on which the FRS can be run. Even now, we have the FRS software in our C4I through which live feed of normal CCTV cameras can also be used for identification of the suspect,' a senior police officer with the modernisation unit of the city police said. The Delhi Police has recently issued directions to commercial establishments in Aerocity, including hotels, guest houses, restaurants and petrol pumps, to install a 'sufficient number' of CCTV cameras covering a 50-metre radius outside their premises to bolster surveillance and enhance public safety ahead of Independence Day. The CCTV footage must be stored for a minimum of 90 days, officials said. 'The FRS helps us in identifying and locating high-value targets and criminals who are wanted by the law enforcement agencies or those looking for a safe haven,' said special commissioner of police (operations and modernisation) Manish Kumar Agarwal. The directive, which remains in force until September 2, aims to prevent crimes and strengthen monitoring in high-profile areas near the IGI Airport, which clocks heavy tourist footfall. A senior Delhi Police officer said that all establishments in and around the Aerocity have been asked to ensure their CCTV systems are in working order, and report any malfunction immediately to the nearest police station.
The Print
28 minutes ago
- The Print
Row over BJP ex-spokesperson's nomination as Bombay HC judge reaches Parliament. Who is Aarti Sathe
A day after the collegium's decision, Trinalmool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale posted on X: 'Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP.' On 28 July, the Supreme Court Collegium approved the appointment of Aarti Arun Sathe, once a Maharashtra BJP spokesperson, as a high court judge, which sparked a row as the Opposition raised concerns over whether she would be impartial as a judge. Mumbai: The controversial nomination of an advocate for judgeship at the Bombay High Court has now reached Parliament, with Congress MP Hibi Eden moving an adjournment motion to discuss the matter in the Lok Sabha. Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP. Legal fraternity – same person or just similar names? — Saket Gokhale MP (@SaketGokhale) July 29, 2025 Earlier this week, others in the Opposition in Maharashtra began voicing their concerns. Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar wrote on X: 'The appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy. The judge is a highly responsible position which should be impartial. When someone is appointed as judge from the ruling party, it raises a serious question mark on neutral position and also democratic process…' The Bharatiya Janata Party, however, clarified that the allegations are unfounded, and that her appointment is based on merit. Keshav Upadhye, chief spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP, said she had resigned from the party a year and half ago. 'She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticising her recommendation, which was made as per the decision of the judges' Collegium,' he posted on X. After resigning from the BJP, Aarti Sathe was recommended as a judge of the High Court after one and a half years. She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticizing her recommendation , which was made as per the decision of the judges'… — Keshav Upadhye (@keshavupadhye) August 5, 2025 Congress's state unit president Harshwardhan Sapkal also questioned Sathe's nomination. 'Democracy and the Constitution have been systematically sidelined in the country since 2014,' he said. 'All autonomous institutions are operating under government directives, even the Election Commission of India. But the most serious and worrying development is within the judiciary itself.' ThePrint attempted to reach Sathe via call, but she declined to comment on the matter. Also Read: Come to Maharashtra & speak—3 women MPs hold Nishikant Dubey to task over 'patak ke marenge' remark Who is Aarti Sathe? Sathe was affiliated with BJP Mumbai, and was appointed as a spokesperson in 2023. She was previously made a panelist for media interactions in 2020. She was also the head of the party's Legal cell. However, she had resigned from the position on 6 January, 2024, and also from the party's primary membership that year. 'I wish to be relieved from the responsibility as the head-legal cell BJP Mumbai for personal and professional reasons,' she had written in a letter addressed to Mumbai BJP chief Ashish Shelar, a copy of which is with ThePrint. Sathe has been a lawyer for the last 20 years, and has mainly dealt with matters linked to direct and indirect taxes, along with issues related to Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) before the Bombay High Court. As party spokesperson, she often appeared in media debates on issues related to Mumbai. In debates on television news channels, she regularly spoke about the alleged mismanagement in the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation), the condition of dilapidated buildings in the city, or the condition of roads. Back in 2016, in a conversation with Mirror Now, she had defended demonetisation, saying that it would help clean up the corruption in BMC and MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority). She had also spoken against the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in 2021 when Shah Rukh Khan's son Aryan Khan had been arrested in a drug bust, accusing the then cabinet minister Nawab Malik of the undivided NCP of trying to influence the case. Referring to such statements by Sathe in the past, Rohit Pawar told media persons Wednesday, 'She has in the past taken the side of one party vociferously. So we want to request the Supreme Court Collegium to stop this proposal. We don't have doubt over her merit or capability. But looking at the current political scenario, question arises if common people will get justice? We as Opposition continuously speak against the government, so if our case goes in front of this judge, will we get justice?' Arun Sathe's BJP-RSS link Much like the current row, a similar controversy had erupted back in 2015, when Sathe's father, Arun Sathe, who is also the brother of former Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan, was appointed to the board of market regulator SEBI as a part-time member. Arun Sathe is also a lawyer, and has been a BJP worker with RSS background. He was a national executive member of the partyBJP, and held various positions in the student wing, ABVP. However, he had said at the time that he had been nominated by the finance ministry, and would do his job judiciously. '…I understand the differences between politics and market issues. As a lawyer, I will have views independent of biases,' he had told Business Standard in 2015. He had also said that he had been connected with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh since childhood, and had been a part of the party since its Jan Sangh days. In 1989, he had tried to contest Lok Sabha polls from the Mumbai North West constituency against Congress's Sunil Dutt, but had lost. (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: Farmers' crosshairs to 'rummy' row, NCP's Kokate loses agri ministry after string of controversies
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC judges take exception to order against HC judge
NEW DELHI: Top judges of Supreme Court have taken strong exception to the order passed on Tuesday by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan castigating an Allahabad high court judge for lack of knowledge in criminal law and de-rostering him from hearing criminal cases for life, and are mulling steps to remedy an unpleasant situation created in breach of repeated SC rulings. A concerned Chief Justice of India B R Gavai consulted his senior colleagues and is now discussing ways and means to remedy the order that has created difficulties for the chief justice (CJ) of one of the oldest high courts of India, at Allahabad. SC has repeatedly ruled that the CJ of an HC is the master of the roster and he alone can allocate, roster and assign cases to single, division and three-judge benches in HC and that his discretion is not amenable to judicial orders. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan ordered the Allahabad HC CJ to "immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned judge" and "make the judge sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge". They also said, "We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office". Irrespective of the folly of the HC judge, SC, which gives primacy to principles of natural justice, passed the caustic and damaging order against the judge without giving him an opportunity to explain why he passed the impugned directive. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan called the HC judge's order one of the worst they had come across in their tenures as SC judges, and said, "The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of HC." TOI spoke to a number of former CJIs, who too expressed concern over the manner in which the bench led by Justice Pardiwala proceeded to castigate the HC judge, stressing that errors in HC orders are not uncommon and are regularly appealed in SC. A judge's mistake in appreciating legal points or facts in a particular case cannot empower SC, while deciding appeals against an HC judgment, to castigate the judge who authored that judgment and take punitive measures like de-rostering him, which, the ex-CJIs said, was the sole prerogative of the HC CJ. Incidentally, the bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had fixed timelines for the President and governors to grant or refuse assent to bills passed by state assemblies, while granting "deemed approval" to bills pending with the TN governor. The President has since sent a reference to SC seeking its opinion on whether the apex court has the power to fix timelines for her and governors when the Constitution does not provide for the same, and whether SC can use powers under Article 142 to grant deemed approval to bills. In the case of Braj Kishore Thakur vs. Union of India (1997), SC had ruled: "Higher courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in findings or orders of courts at the lower tiers. Such powers are certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial personages in lower cadre. It is best to remember the words of a jurist that 'a judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born'. .." In Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand (1997), another three-judge bench said "that the administrative control of HC vests in the chief justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst equals. The CJ is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted. The puisne judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the chief justice or under his directions. No judge or judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the chief justice." This ruling was made applicable to SC by a three-judge bench's judgment in 2018.
