HERO TO GROUND - JAGDEEP DHANKER, EX-VICE PRESIDENT

HERO TO GROUND - JAGDEEP DHANKER, EX-VICE PRESIDENT 

The Resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and the Crisis of Constitutional Autonomy in India. Once a Hero, PM Modi appointed him the Governor of West Bengal to tackle one of the most powerful CMs of the Eastern State. 

The resignation of India’s Vice President, Jagdeep Dhankhar, on 21 July 2025 at the end of the first day in the upper house of parliament, represents a critical inflexion point in the country's democratic trajectory. More than a routine political development, it signals a profound institutional crisis—one that calls into question the balance of power between constitutional authorities and an increasingly dominant executive.  

Dhankhar’s departure reportedly stemmed from persistent frictions with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), particularly over his inability to exercise independent authority as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. While the Vice President's role in India is largely ceremonial, his function as presiding officer of the Upper House carries procedural significance. Dhankhar’s bid to assert this role autonomously appears to have met stiff resistance, revealing the limited tolerance for dissent—even within the upper echelons of the Indian state.  He felt humiliated when the treasury benches' MPs failed to show up for the twice-rescheduled meeting of the Parliamentary Committee, which was last scheduled at 4:00 pm.    

Throughout his tenure, Dhankhar made several attempts to demonstrate institutional independence. Notably, he challenged the government’s position on the farmers’ protests, offering forthright criticism of the Agriculture Ministry. He also resisted party pressure in contentious matters such as the judicial pronouncements of Justice Shekhar Yadav and the breach-of-privilege allegations against opposition MP Raghav Chadha. In reopening debate on sensitive issues like "Operation Sindoor," Dhankhar positioned himself as a proponent of deliberative democracy—a stance increasingly at odds with a governance style marked by executive centralisation.

The final rupture reportedly occurred when Dhankhar approved an impeachment motion against a sitting judge, Justice Yashwant Verma, without consulting the PMO. While such a move falls within his constitutional remit, it was interpreted as an assertion of authority that breached the informal norms of executive supremacy. The retaliatory response was swift: BJP parliamentarians were summoned in small groups to sign a counter-impeachment motion, and Dhankhar resigned within hours.

This episode invites comparison to the 1979 B.D. Jatti controversy—the last major crisis involving a Vice President. However, the present context is more alarming, situated within a broader erosion of institutional autonomy across the Indian state apparatus. Under the current administration, several constitutional offices—from the Election Commission to the judiciary—have faced scrutiny for perceived alignment with executive preferences. Dhankhar’s ouster suggests that even individuals with ideological proximity to the ruling party, such as his former association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), are not immune if they assert independence. 

Ironically, there has not been any manifestation of sympathy, let alone any outrage, either in the Congress or the BJP, not even from his own community in Rajasthan, for Dhankar's ouster, although the Congress has 18 MLAs and the BJP 16 MLAs, 6 MPs and 4 ministers in the 200 Assembly from his Jat community.     

His resignation also exposes deeper questions about the status of parliamentary democracy in India. The orchestration of the impeachment motion, the absence of transparent deliberation, and the informal mechanisms of political coercion all suggest a procedural hollowing-out of democratic institutions. The episode underscores how constitutional offices, once intended as bulwarks against majoritarian overreach, are being transformed into instruments of executive consolidation.

In conclusion, the resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar should be read not as a singular event but as a symptom of a larger structural transformation. It exemplifies the diminished space for institutional autonomy in India's constitutional architecture and raises urgent questions about the health of its parliamentary democracy. As India approaches its next general election, the implications of this crisis will reverberate far beyond the confines of the Rajya Sabha.

It is a matter of concern that Jagdeep Dhankhar, despite appearing bold, ultimately bowed down to PM Modi’s overriding power. In contrast, Somnath Chatterjee, as Speaker of the House of Parliament, showed broad shoulders, refusing to resign when his Party, the CPM, asked him to do so.  This is where ideology, not body size, matters?