&w=3840&q=100)
Home Ministry notifies resignation of VP Dhankhar; Rajya Sabha informed
Press Trust of India New Delhi
The Rajya Sabha on Tuesday was informed about the Ministry of Home Affairs' notification regarding the resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, with immediate effect.
Soon after the House met for the Question Hour at 12 noon, Ghanshyam Tiwari, who was in the Chair, informed members about the notification.
"The Ministry of Home Affairs, vide notification dated July 22, 2025, has conveyed the resignation of Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar under Article 67 (A) of the Constitution with immediate effect," Tiwari announced.
Vice President of India is ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Dhankhar had sent his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on Monday evening.
"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," he said in his letter to the President.
Dhankhar, 74, assumed office in August 2022.
Soon after the House met in the morning, Deputy Chairman Harivansh said that further Constitutional process concerning vacancy in the Office of Vice President of India will be communicated as and when received.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission's (EC) claim of having constitutional powers to verify voters' citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls contradicts earlier court rulings. According to a report by The Indian Express, ADR also criticised the EC for excluding Aadhaar and ration cards as acceptable proof of identity, calling the move 'patently absurd,' especially as Aadhaar is widely used for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residency documents. 'Grave fraud' in rush to revise rolls The ADR, the petitioner in the matter, argued that the EC has not provided valid reasons for hurrying through the revision ahead of Bihar's Assembly polls. The group described the process as a 'grave fraud' on the state's electorate. The revision exercise, announced on June 24, has been controversial due to its timing and new requirement that voters registered after 2003 must provide several documents to stay on the electoral rolls. This has raised fears that many legitimate voters could be disenfranchised. ADR has submitted its response to the EC's affidavit, filed on July 21. In that affidavit, the EC claimed that Article 326 of the Constitution permits it to verify the citizenship of voters and clarified that being removed from the electoral roll does not mean loss of citizenship. The matter will be heard next on 28 July. Citizenship verification against court judgments? ADR argued that the EC's claim of authority to verify citizenship goes against earlier Supreme Court decisions. It cited Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which stated that the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not existing voters. It also referenced Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), where the court held that being on the electoral roll is strong proof of citizenship, and the onus to disprove it lies with those who object. ADR criticised the EC's directive requiring voters added after 2003 to produce one of 11 specified documents, saying this wrongly shifts the burden of proof to voters. 'It is submitted that the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process,' ADR said. The group questioned why the existing legal procedures under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with a fresh set of documentation and a new form. ADR also said the EC had not provided any data showing foreign nationals or illegal migrants had been included in the electoral rolls. EC's Aadhaar rejection 'absurd' In its July 21 affidavit, the EC refused to accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to include Aadhaar, ration cards, and Voter ID as valid documents, arguing that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained using false papers. ADR countered that the EC's list of 11 acceptable documents is also open to fraud. It added, 'The fact that Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI's rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd.' 'Violations' by officials ADR alleged that EC officials on the ground are not following the Commission's own rules. The June 24 guidelines required Block Level Officers (BLOs) to visit each home and provide two forms per voter. But ADR said many voters had not met any BLOs and had not signed any forms, yet their submissions were recorded online. 'Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,' it added. ADR also criticised the lack of a clear process for verifying these forms and documents, saying this gave Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) excessive powers that could lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Why target post-2003 voters? The EC's order says that the 2003 electoral roll is proof of citizenship for voters already registered. For those born after July 1, 1987, the EC asks for proof of citizenship from at least one parent. If the parent appears on the 2003 roll, the child may rely on that. ADR said this distinction was unfair and placed those registered after 2003 at 'a larger risk of disenfranchisement.' It also questioned why the EC had not submitted the 2003 revision order to the Court and asked for it to be produced. In contrast, during the 2004 revision exercise in the North East, only new voters had to submit documents, and that process took over six months (July 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005). In Bihar, the entire process is being compressed into three months -- from June 25 to September 30. 2025 roll already revised ADR also asked why a fresh revision is needed when the 2025 electoral roll was already updated and published in January this year. The group said the roll is regularly updated to account for deaths, migration, and other changes. ADR also highlighted an August 11, 2023 EC circular to state CEOs, directing them to delete names of electors who had died, moved, or were duplicates. The EC claimed the current SIR was being held in response to concerns raised by political parties. But ADR said, 'not a single political party had asked ECI for a de novo exercise such as the one prescribed in the instant SIR order'. Instead, parties had raised concerns about fake votes being added, genuine opposition voters being deleted, and irregular voting after polls had closed. Supreme Court's interim observations The case was first heard on July 10 by a vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. While the Court did not halt the process, it suggested the EC consider allowing Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents, in addition to the 11 listed. The EC was told to submit its affidavit by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28. As of Friday, the EC said it had received forms from 72.3 million voters for inclusion in the draft roll. Around 6.5 million names are to be deleted due to death, permanent migration, duplicate entries, or because the voter was untraceable. Further deletions may occur after the draft roll is published. Between August 1 and September 1, those whose names are missing from the draft will be able to file claims and objections.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Don't mislead the public': House panel votes to subpoena Justice Dept for Jeffrey Epstein files
A House committee voted to subpoena the Justice Department for files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The motion, introduced by Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA), passed in an 8-2 vote, with three Republicans siding with Democrats. Show more Show less
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Congress accuses the government of doing ‘petty politics' over the motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma
The Congress on Saturday (July 26, 2025) accused the haratiya Janata Party of doing 'petty politics', unbothered about Constitutional principles, referring to reports which claimed that the Opposition-backed notice in the Rajya Sabha for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma had only been submitted but not admitted in the Upper House. The Congress attack on the Narendra Modi government came a day after Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju asserted that there shouldn't remain any doubt and that the proceedings would begin in the Lok Sabha. In the Lok Sabha, the government secured the signatures of 152 MPs across the political spectrum to move a notice against Justice Varma – who faces allegations of corruption after wads of half-burnt currency notes were discovered at his official residence in Delhi on March 14 – while in the Rajya Sabha, 63 Opposition members had moved the notice. Addressing a press conference at the All India Congress Committee (AICC) office, Congress spokesperson and Rajya Sabha member Abhishek Singhvi quoted former Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar's July 21 statement in the House to argue that the notice, signed by 63 Opposition members, had been admitted by the Chair. Mr. Singhvi further argued that the former Chairman's comments had made it clear that only a statutory committee of inquiry, under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, had to be formed after consulting with the Lok Sabha Speaker since an identical motion for the removal of the judge was submitted in the Lower House. 'Dhankhar's a political exit' 'If the motion [in the Rajya Sabha] has not been admitted, then was a shadow boxing going on or a drama was going on?' the Congress leader asked. He asked if the BJP believed in 'one nation one party approach' since it doesn't want to acknowledge the Opposition notice and claimed that Mr. Dhankhar's departure was a 'political exit camouflaged as a constitutional lie'. Mr. Singhvi also accused the BJP of adopting double standards in its approach to judicial matters, particularly regarding Justice Varma as well as Justice Shekhar Yadav against whom the Opposition had moved a notice for removal for allegedly making communal remarks. 'We are also very concerned about this selective outrage and selective silence on Justice Varma, Justice Yadav — two judges' issues. This is typical BJP's double standard. The BJP's game of motions is less about law and more about optics... On judicial propriety, on anti-corruption movement and on judicial accountability, the BJP's mantra is talk the talk, never walk the walk. It is the worst example of hypocrisy on this entire episode,' he said.
