The Vice President of India occupies a unique constitutional position, serving not only as the second-highest executive authority in the nation but also as the ex-officio Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of Parliament. This dual role necessitates a fine balance between executive detachment and legislative impartiality, an equilibrium critical to the smooth functioning of India’s democracy. Recent events, however, have placed the Vice President’s conduct under scrutiny, with Opposition parties accusing the current officeholder, Jagdeep Dhankhar, of partisanship. This has sparked discussions about the legal framework and political significance of removing a Vice President—a rare and challenging process that India has never seen enacted in its parliamentary history.
Article 67(b) of the Constitution lays down the procedure for removing the Vice President, requiring a resolution initiated in the Rajya Sabha and passed by an effective majority—more than half the total membership of the House. Following this, the resolution must be approved by a simple majority in the Lok Sabha. Importantly, a minimum of 14 days’ notice is mandated before such a motion can be debated. The Vice President is prohibited from presiding over the Rajya Sabha during discussions on their potential removal, ensuring procedural fairness. These stipulations underline the gravity of the process, which is designed not for political convenience but as a constitutional safeguard against gross misconduct or incapacity. Yet, the very stringency of these provisions underscores their intended rarity, aiming to protect the office from frivolous political maneuvering.
The allegations against Dhankhar center on claims of biased conduct as Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha. The Opposition has accused him of favoring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during debates, suppressing dissenting voices, and selectively enforcing procedural rules to disadvantage non-government members. Specific incidents cited include the rejection of notices for debates under Rule 267 and interruptions during speeches by prominent Opposition leaders. Critics argue that such actions undermine the neutrality and independence expected of the Vice President, eroding trust in the office and, by extension, in parliamentary institutions. The INDIA bloc, a coalition led by the Indian National Congress, has even gone so far as to initiate steps for a resolution seeking his removal, framing their move as a fight to preserve democratic integrity rather than an attempt to secure immediate outcomes.
While the INDIA bloc’s numbers in Parliament fall short of the threshold required to pass such a resolution, their actions carry significant symbolic weight. By highlighting their grievances in this dramatic manner, they aim to draw public attention to what they perceive as the ruling party’s encroachment on institutional autonomy. This strategy also reflects broader concerns about the increasing politicization of high constitutional offices, a trend that many fear could weaken India’s democratic fabric. However, questions remain about the efficacy and appropriateness of such moves, especially given the constitutional and political complexities involved.
The Vice President’s role as Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha is inherently delicate, demanding impartial adjudication in a chamber often marked by sharp political divisions. Unlike a Speaker in the Lok Sabha, who is expected to resign from their party upon election, the Vice President is not required to sever ties with their political affiliations. This structural nuance creates an inherent tension, particularly during contentious debates or in periods of heightened political polarization. While the Vice President’s authority to interpret rules and manage proceedings is vital for maintaining order, the exercise of this authority must be perceived as fair and balanced to command legitimacy. Allegations of partisanship, whether substantiated or not, risk tarnishing the office and undermining public confidence in its neutrality.
It is worth noting that no Vice President in India’s history has faced removal, underscoring the exceptional nature of such a move. This is in stark contrast to the removal mechanisms for other high constitutional functionaries, such as the President, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the Chief Election Commissioner, all of whom are subject to impeachment proceedings requiring higher thresholds of support. The framers of the Constitution likely intended this disparity to reflect the Vice President’s primarily legislative role, as opposed to the more executive or judicial functions of these other offices. However, this also means that the removal process, while legally less onerous, carries significant political implications, as it directly challenges the individual’s ability to discharge their duties impartially.
The current controversy also raises broader questions about the evolving norms of parliamentary democracy in India. The Rajya Sabha, envisioned as a forum for sober second thought and regional representation, relies heavily on the Chairperson’s impartiality to function effectively. Any perception of bias not only disrupts the chamber’s proceedings but also diminishes its role as a deliberative body capable of holding the executive accountable. The Opposition’s accusations against Dhankhar, whether entirely justified or not, highlight the fragility of this balance in an era where partisan interests increasingly overshadow institutional norms.
Legal experts have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of the Opposition’s move, given the numerical realities in Parliament. In the 245-member Rajya Sabha, the ruling BJP and its allies command a comfortable majority of 125 seats, while the Opposition, including the INDIA bloc, has the support of around 112 MPs. The numbers are even more lopsided in the Lok Sabha, where the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance holds 293 seats compared to the Opposition’s 238. These figures make it virtually impossible for the resolution to succeed, raising questions about the strategic intent behind its initiation.
At the same time, the debate underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in high offices. While the Vice President’s removal is unlikely, the controversy has opened a critical dialogue about the need to strengthen institutional safeguards against potential misuse of authority. Codifying clearer rules for the conduct of parliamentary proceedings and providing mechanisms for addressing grievances against presiding officers could help mitigate future conflicts. Moreover, fostering a culture of bipartisan respect and cooperation is essential to restoring trust in democratic institutions, a task that requires concerted efforts from all political stakeholders.
Ultimately, the legal process for removing the Vice President of India is a testament to the Constitution’s emphasis on both accountability and stability. Designed as a measure of last resort, it reflects the high standards expected of those occupying this esteemed office. However, the current political climate, marked by sharp divisions and mutual distrust, has brought these provisions into sharp focus, raising important questions about their application and relevance. As India navigates this contentious episode, it must strive to uphold the principles of fairness, impartiality, and institutional integrity that form the bedrock of its democracy. For a nation that takes pride in its constitutional heritage, ensuring the credibility of its institutions is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative.
Amal Chandra is an author, political analyst and columnist. Follow him on ‘X’ at @ens_socialis. Views expressed are the author's own.