Jagdeep Dhankhar's tenure as West Bengal Governor was a constitutional flashpoint
As the nominal head of a state, the Governor is expected to function as a vital link to the Union, a custodian of the Constitution, and a guide to the elected government. This role has an inherent tension: How to perform these duties, particularly on constitutional oversight, without being perceived as encroaching upon the democratic mandate of the state legislature and executive. Dhankhar's role as Governor of WB brought this tension into sharp public focus.
A defining feature was his prolific use of public platforms, most notably Twitter, to communicate his views and question the state government's actions. This marked a departure from constitutional tradition and practice, that gubernatorial advice and concerns are best offered in private consultation with the Chief Minister. By taking his critiques of administrative and policy matters directly to the public sphere, Jagdeep Dhankhar created a dynamic of constant, open friction with the Mamata Banerjee government, fundamentally altering the nature of their constitutional engagement.
On the issue of law and order, Dhankhar was a persistent critic, frequently summoning senior police officials and issuing statements that questioned the state's administrative capacity. Following the 2021 Assembly elections, his visits to areas affected by post-poll violence were presented as a response to a constitutional crisis. However, these actions were met with accusations from the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) that the Raj Bhavan was acting in a partisan manner, with his pronouncements often aligning closely with the narrative of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the opposition in the state.
This friction extended deep into the legislative domain. The Governor's power to grant or withhold assent to bills passed by the legislature is a constitutional check, but it is meant to be exercised with utmost restraint. During his tenure, several bills, including the crucial Howrah Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Bill, remained pending at the Raj Bhavan for extended periods.The state government argued that such delays amounted to an obstruction of the legislative will of the people.
To appreciate the distinctiveness of this approach, it is instructive to contrast it with the gubernatorial style of Gopal Krishna Gandhi, who served in West Bengal from 2004 to 2009. Gandhi, a seasoned diplomat and scholar, presided during an equally, if not more, volatile period. His interventions, however, were rooted in what could be described as constitutional quietude and moral suasion. He engaged in firm, but discreet, dialogue with the then Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. He sought to be a mediator, a calming influence who could facilitate talks between the government and the Opposition, then led by Mamata Banerjee. The contrast is one of method: One chose public scrutiny as the primary tool of accountability, the other chose private counsel and moral authority.
While one contextualises Jagdeep Dhankhar's tenure, it cannot be divorced from the prevailing national political climate, characterised by intense competition between the BJP-led central government and powerful regional parties such as the TMC. His actions in West Bengal were seen by many observers as part of a pattern in Opposition-ruled states where the Raj Bhavan became a key site of political contestation. This aligns with the long-standing debate over the role of the Governor, with bodies like the Sarkaria Commission having cautioned decades ago against appointing active politicians to the post to prevent the office from being used for partisan ends.
The governorship of Dhankhar in West Bengal was a tenure that consistently tested the established conventions of India's federal democracy. By adopting a posture of public and persistent opposition to the elected state government, his term forced a debate on the very nature of the Governor's role. It highlighted a fundamental divergence in approach from predecessors like Gopal Krishna Gandhi, who operated on the principle of dignified detachment and mediation.
The legacy of Jagdeep Dhankhar's term in West Bengal is, therefore, one that brought critical questions to the fore, one that continues to play out in other states: Where does a Governor's duty to uphold the Constitution end and political interference begin? And what are the long-term institutional consequences when the Raj Bhavan is perceived not as a neutral umpire, but as a player in the political arena?
The author is a political anthropologist and teaches in Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Government College, Kolkata
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
India's press and media ecosystem expands with over 1.55 lakh publications and 908 private TV channels: govt.
The number of publications registered with the Press Registrar General of India has increased from 1.05 lakh in 2014-15 to 1.55 lakh in 2024-25, according to the government. In response to a query in Lok Sabha, Union Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting L. Murugan on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said the number of private satellite TV channels have also increased from 821 in 2014-15 to 908 in 2024-25. 'As of today, 92 private channels and 50 Doordarshan channels are available on DD Free Dish. Both private and DD channels operate in various regional languages, ensuring a wider audience reach across the country,' said the reply.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Age of consent must stay 18: Centre to Supreme Court
The Union government on Wednesday opposed any move to lower the age of consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the Supreme Court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. The Centre firmly urged the top court to reject any proposition to amend or dilute the age of consent, stating that such a move would embolden exploitative conduct and harm the very children the law seeks to protect. (HT Photo) In its written submissions filed before a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the government underscored that the current threshold of 18 must remain 'strictly and uniformly enforced' to maintain the integrity of child protection laws and uphold the best interests of minors. 'The statutory age of consent fixed at eighteen years must therefore be strictly and uniformly enforced. Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law,' the Centre said, adding that 'introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' The Centre's categorical stand assumes significance amid a deluge of cases where courts are increasingly confronted with situations involving consensual relationships between adolescents, often leading to the prosecution of young boys under POCSO, even when the alleged victim does not complain of coercion or exploitation. The Centre's response comes in the wake of concerns raised by senior advocate Indira Jaising, who, in her capacity as amicus curiae, had submitted earlier this year that mandatory reporting of all sexual activity involving minors, even consensual encounters between adolescents, was leading to the criminalisation of young people and severely compromising the health rights, privacy, and autonomy of adolescent girls. Jaising and senior advocate Sidharth Luthra are assisting the top court in a 2012 public interest litigation filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. The matter is expected to be taken up again on Thursday. Emphasising the deliberate and coherent statutory policy behind setting 18 as the age of consent, the Centre, however, stated: 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered and coherent statutory policy.' This policy, the submissions said, is reflected not just in the POCSO Act but also across several legal instruments, including the Indian Penal Code, its successor the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Indian Majority Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act -- all of which view individuals under 18 as legally incapable of full agency in decisions with lasting consequences. 'It is submitted that this policy decision is an outcome of careful and ongoing legislative discussions, considering India's cultural diversity, socio-economic conditions, and the practical challenges faced across the country,' the government said. 'It reflects a clear understanding of the vulnerability of minors, the common occurrence of coercion and manipulation in such situations, and the challenges in proving the absence of consent when minors are involved,' added the submissions, settled by additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati. The government also warned that lowering the age of consent would shift focus from the conduct of the accused to the perceived willingness of the child, undermining the spirit of child-centric justice and increasing the risk of victim-blaming. 'A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent…such a shift would inevitably lead to the re-victimisation of the child by shifting the focus from the unlawful conduct of the accused to the credibility of the child's version,' it further noted. While acknowledging that some adolescent relationships may be consensual and born out of 'emotional curiosity or mutual attraction,' the Centre maintained that these instances must be left to the courts to evaluate individually, and should not become the basis for legislative change. 'Such instances must be carefully scrutinised by courts on a case-by-case basis, using discretion and sensitivity to the facts. This judicial discretion, however, is distinct from legislative dilution. The moment the statute begins to generalise such exceptions, it weakens the bright-line protective standard that currently acts as a deterrent and shield for all children,' the submissions stated. Referring to data cited by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development in its 240th Report, the government highlighted that more than 50% of sexual offences against children are perpetrated by persons known to the victim, including family members, caregivers, and teachers, which, it said, are relationships often marked by a power imbalance that prevents children from resisting or reporting abuse. 'In such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing',' the Centre said. It further asserted that strict liability under POCSO is not punitive but protective, recognising that minors, regardless of physical maturity, are often incapable of giving informed consent, especially under social, familial, or economic pressure. 'This principle is not confined to a single enactment but is consistently reflected across multiple enactments…This formulation is a deliberate choice, grounded in the recognition that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual activity,' the government submitted. Invoking international commitments, the Centre also pointed to India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which defines a child as anyone under 18 and mandates States to protect them from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. The POCSO Act, it added, was 'enacted in direct response to this obligation, codifying a strict liability regime wherein all sexual acts with children under 18 are criminalised, irrespective of perceived consent.' The Centre firmly urged the top court to reject any proposition to amend or dilute the age of consent, stating that such a move would embolden exploitative conduct and harm the very children the law seeks to protect.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Centre reached out to VP Jagdeep Dhankhar hours before he quit
At least two senior central ministers reached out to former vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar after the government found out that he had acknowledged an Opposition-sponsored notice for the impeachment of justice Yashwant Varma and one of them hinted at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's disapproval of the move, but the 74-year-old said he was acting within the rules of the House, people aware of the matter said on Wednesday. Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on Monday, citing health concerns.(Sansad TV/ANI Video Grab) Union health minister and leader of the Rajya Sabha JP Nadda and Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju spoke to Dhankhar on Monday after he spoke in the Rajya Sabha about an impeachment notice against the sitting high court judge signed by 63 members. Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on Monday citing health concerns.(HT) 'Rijiu told Dhankhar that in the Lok Sabha, there is a process of building a consensus on the impeachment and pointed out that the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, had signed the notice. He even indicated that the PM is not happy about the sudden development,' said one of the persons quoted above, requesting anonymity. But Dhankhar indicated that he was acting well within the rules of the House, this person cited above added. It is only after this exchange -- which came after the first business advisory committee of the Rajya Sabha at 12:30pm -- that the leaders chose to not go for the second BAC meeting that was held at 4.30pm on Monday. HT reported on Tuesday that the former Vice President's move to kickstart the impeachment process of justice Varma in the Rajya Sabha took the government, which wanted the process to go through the Lok Sabha, by surprise, and it was the trigger that prompted the abrupt resignation. The developments emerged on a day the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced that it had already kicked off preparations to hold the next vice-presidential elections as politics heated up over a series of meetings in Delhi following the dramatic resignation two days ago. Union home minister Amit Shah, Union health minister and Leader of the Rajya Sabha JP Nadda, and Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju met Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla amid intense speculation on whether the former VP admitted the Opposition-sponsored notice for the impeachment of justice Varma in the Rajya Sabha. Rajya Sabha deputy chairman Harivansh also met Birla for a marathon meeting. According to two senior officials, the pending impeachment notices were one of the key topics of discussion. Government officials indicated that the government didn't want to sit on the issue and may urge the presiding officials to start the impeachment process by appointing a committee of jurists, who will look into the allegations and give a report to Parliament. 'The government is in no mood to take up the Opposition-sponsored notice,' said a senior government functionary, adding that the Centre would prefer the Lok Sabha notice to proceed. Separately, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge told HT that constituents of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) will meet and collectively decide the strategy for the upcoming VP election, and take a call on any candidate. On Monday night, Dhankhar, 74, resigned on health grounds, in an unprecedented and unexpected move that came after he presided over the first day of the monsoon session in the Rajya Sabha. In his resignation letter to President Droupadi Murmu, Dhankhar said, 'To prioritise health care and abide by medical advice, I hereby resign as Vice President of India, effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution.' The Union home ministry formalised the decision through a gazette notification, that came on the same day as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's terse message, 15 hours and 18 minutes after the resignation was posted at 9.25pm by the Vice President's X handle The poll watchdog said it has started constituting the electoral college comprising MPs of both Houses of Parliament. Both elected and nominated members are eligible to vote in the vice presidential election. It is also finalising the returning officer and assistant returning officers. 'On completion of the preparatory activities, the announcement of the election schedule to the office of the Vice President of India will follow as soon as possible,' ECI said. In the 782-member electoral college, comprising parliamentarians from both houses, the National Democratic Alliance holds the edge with 426 members. The INDIA bloc has 312 members. ECI said the formal 'announcement of the election schedule to the office of the Vice-President of India will follow as soon as possible' once the foundational steps are complete. According to Clause 2 of Article 68 of the Constitution, an election to fill a vacancy in the office of the vice president occurring due to his death, resignation or removal, or otherwise, will be held 'as soon as possible' after it goes vacant. The person elected to fill the vacancy will be entitled to hold office 'for the full term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office'. From the day the notification is issued, 'calling the electoral college to vote', and till the day of the poll, a period of 30 days is stipulated. A person cannot be elected as the vice president unless he is a citizen of India, has completed 35 years of age and is qualified for election as a member of the Rajya Sabha. The entire debate on the impeachment motion – justice Varma is facing allegations of corruption after wads of cash were recovered from his residence in Delhi in March – now hinges on whether Dhankhar admitted the notice signed by 63 Opposition members on Monday. HT reported on Tuesday that last week, Dhankhar asked some Opposition leaders to give a notice for the impeachment of justice Varma in the Rajya Sabha, even as the government wanted to bring the notice only in the Lok Sabha. Accordingly, a senior Congress lawmaker who is also a lawyer, hurriedly prepared an impeachment notice on Sunday; all 63 MPs who signed it on Monday were from the Opposition parties. Not a single National Democratic Alliance (NDA) MP signed the Opposition-sponsored notice in the Rajya Sabha. The reason: The NDA had no idea that such a notice was being prepared. Dhankhar himself came to the House after the first Business Advisory Committee meeting on Monday and announced, 'I need to inform you that I have received notice of motion under Article 217(1)(B) read with Article 218 and Article 124…to constitute a statutory committee for removal of justice Yashwant Varma. This has been received by me today. It is signed by more than 50 members of the Council of States.' The notice derailed the government's meticulous plan to remove justice Varma. A furious Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) decided that party chief and Leader of the Rajya Sabha JP Nadda and parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju would not attend the second BAC meeting led by Dhankhar in the evening. Hours later, Dhankhar had resigned. (With inputs by Vrinda Tulsian)
