The most telling detail in Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s sudden resignation is not just the timing – but the fact that at least two senior ministers reached out to him “hours before he quit”, evidently on behalf of the Prime Minister’s office, to express strong misgivings over his recent actions, reported Hindustan Times . That the government was so invested in preventing his exit speaks to deeper fault lines in the corridors of power.
A Quarantine for Constitutional Boldness
It appears that Dhankhar’s formal acceptance of an Opposition-sponsored impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma – initiated by 63 MPs in the Rajya Sabha – blindsided the Centre. According to reports, Health Minister J.P. Nadda and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju were pressed into service to call him, with Rijiju explicitly relaying that “the PM is not happy about the sudden development.”
Instead of allowing the Vice President, who also serves as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, to act within constitutional boundaries, the call appeared to be a corrective intervention. It signalled that Dhankhar had stepped out of the political orbit defined by the ruling coalition – and that political expediency was preferred over institutional propriety.
Why the Panic?
Many believe Dhankhar’s acceptance of the impeachment move, though within his rights, broke a tacit understanding: that sensitive or potentially destabilising business in Parliament must be pre-cleared by the ruling party – preferably in the Lok Sabha. His act of institutional autonomy, coming mid-session and mid-term, likely alarmed the power centre.
By initiating the motion in the Upper House – thereby stealing the government’s thunder – Dhankhar not only embarrassed his political mentor but also highlighted a constitutional agency that was fully functional, independent and occasionally defiant.
When Too Independent Is Too Risky
The ministers’ phone calls suggest the Centre viewed Dhankhar’s decision as a threat: perhaps a precedent for greater parliamentary assertiveness. He had effectively crossed a political Rubicon – one likely to inspire further non-aligned actions from other office bearers. The outreach betrayed a defensive establishment, committed to keeping parliamentary conduct aligned with its own strategy, rather than the written rules of democracy.
Yet, Dhankhar’s response was unapologetic. Unmoved by pressure, he defended his action as being “well within the rules of the House.” His resignation, coming swiftly after the calls, can be seen as a refusal to be shamed or manipulated into tacit compliance.
A Democratic Deficit Under the Guise of Stability
The Centre’s apparent panic – in telephoning the Vice President to defuse a constitutionally valid House motion – reveals a disturbing tension: balancing political control with institutional autonomy. Democracies thrive on independent organs of governance that are free to act without fear of reprisal. When those organs deliberately pre-emptively “reach out” to silence accountability, democracy is weakened.
What we witnessed was not just a resignation attributed to “health reasons” but a retreat from accountability. Political stability cannot come at the expense of institutional independence – especially in a parliamentary democracy.
Charting a Way Forward
Political actors must learn from this episode:
- The role of presiding officers in Parliament should be respected, even when their actions inconvenience the government.
- Centre-State or Centre-Institution communication must be transparent and within constitutional decorum – not thinly veiled political handholding.
- Pressure tactics, even well-meaning, should not bypass formal channels or lines of accountability.
Jagdeep Dhankhar’s final act in office revealed a deeper truth: the battle for India’s democracy today is no longer between manifest ideologies, but between preserving constitutional autonomy and advancing political convenience.
Photo Credit:HT
