Vice President’s Resignation Row: Parliament Grinds to a Halt Over Adjournment Notice Standoff
Opposition furor erupts in Rajya Sabha after nearly 30 adjournment notices demanding a debate on Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation are dismissed. The deadlock has brought legislative proceedings to a virtual standstill.
NewsSutra
Parliament in Deadlock: Vice President’s Resignation Sparks Adjournment Standoff
The Rajya Sabha has been thrown into disarray this week following a major standoff over the resignation demand of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar. The Opposition, citing “constitutional concerns and erosion of neutrality,” submitted nearly 30 adjournment notices demanding an urgent debate on the matter. However, the notices were summarily dismissed by the Rajya Sabha Chairman—ironically, Dhankhar himself—sparking protests, walkouts, and repeated adjournments.
What began as a procedural tug-of-war has now snowballed into a high-stakes political confrontation that exposes deeper tensions around parliamentary authority, impartiality of constitutional offices, and freedom of legislative discussion.
What Triggered the Resignation Demand?
The controversy traces back to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent public remarks during a legal symposium in Delhi, where he allegedly made critical observations about judicial activism and the role of the Constitution’s Basic Structure doctrine.
The opposition interpreted these statements as undermining the judiciary and potentially compromising the neutrality required of the Vice President, who also serves as the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Further allegations emerged when Dhankhar was reported to have held private consultations with senior government officials regarding ongoing legislative bills—something the Opposition claims “violates the impartiality of his constitutional role.”
In response, Opposition MPs, particularly from the INDIA bloc, demanded a debate and moved adjournment notices seeking Dhankhar’s resignation, arguing that his position had become “untenable.”
Rejected Adjournment Notices: A Constitutional Quagmire
In a rare procedural move, 29 out of 30 adjournment notices were dismissed outright without detailed explanation. The Vice President, acting in his capacity as Rajya Sabha Chairman, held that the issue did not warrant urgent suspension of business.
This dismissal has sparked outrage from the Opposition, who argue that when the Vice President himself is the subject of concern, he cannot be the authority deciding admissibility of related motions.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh tweeted, “How can the referee be the player and umpire too? The Chairman cannot silence constitutional debate about his own actions.”
Opposition MPs demanded that the Chair recuse himself from such decisions, suggesting that an independent panel or the Speaker of Lok Sabha could rule on admissibility in such sensitive matters.
Procedural Breakdown: Adjournments and Parliamentary Paralysis
The impasse quickly snowballed into repeated adjournments of the Rajya Sabha, with five consecutive sittings disrupted by slogan-shouting MPs, staged walkouts, and heated exchanges.
Deputy Chairman Harivansh, who presided in Dhankhar’s absence on subsequent days, faced sustained disruption each time the House convened. The Treasury benches accused the Opposition of politicizing a constitutional issue, while the Opposition accused the ruling party of stonewalling accountability.
Important bills—ranging from the Data Protection Bill to amendments to the Forest Conservation Act—remain stalled, compounding the perception that procedural gridlock is now a recurring feature of Indian Parliament.
Speaker’s Position: Lok Sabha Stays Aloof
Interestingly, while the Rajya Sabha is caught in turmoil, the Lok Sabha has remained relatively unaffected. Speaker Om Birla has refused to allow a discussion on the matter in the lower house, terming it “a matter exclusive to the Upper House”.
Opposition leaders, however, argue that since the Vice President is second in constitutional hierarchy, any issue pertaining to his conduct must be debated across both Houses.
This divergence in institutional response has highlighted procedural gaps and the absence of a unified framework to handle such unique constitutional disputes.
Government’s Stand: Allegations Baseless, Aimed at Destabilization
The government has firmly backed Vice President Dhankhar, calling the resignation demand “politically motivated and procedurally illegitimate.”
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi told reporters, “This is nothing but an attempt to discredit the Chair and paralyze legislative functioning. The Vice President has every right to express opinions within the constitutional framework.”
Senior BJP leaders have also argued that freedom of speech applies to constitutional authorities, and that any interpretation of Dhankhar’s comments as judicial overreach is “a matter of political perception, not constitutional violation.”
In private, government sources indicated that entertaining such a resignation debate would set a dangerous precedent, allowing future disruptions based on ideological disagreements with any presiding officer.
Legal Experts Divided: Can a Chairman Be Held to Account?
The standoff has stirred a flurry of legal and constitutional commentary.
While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly provide a mechanism to remove the Vice President outside of impeachment, several jurists believe the matter at hand raises serious questions about the separation of powers and propriety.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising noted in an op-ed, “While the Vice President is not directly answerable to the House in the way a minister is, the moral legitimacy of the position rests on being above party lines. If the House feels that trust is breached, debate cannot be suppressed.”
However, others like constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap have warned that allowing debate on the resignation of the Chair could erode the sanctity of the institution, especially if done on purely political grounds.
Opposition Strategy: More Than Just a Symbolic Fight
The INDIA bloc’s insistence on debating the Vice President’s resignation is part of a broader strategy to position themselves as protectors of institutional integrity ahead of the 2026 general elections.
By escalating this issue, they are attempting to highlight the concentration of power within the executive, the erosion of checks and balances, and the reduced role of the Parliament as a deliberative space.
While many observers view this standoff as politically symbolic, its continued presence on the national agenda is a reminder that constitutional decorum and procedural fairness remain key electoral issues.
Civil Society Response: Is Neutrality Under Threat?
Several civil society groups and former bureaucrats have also weighed in, urging the Parliament to find a non-partisan resolution.
A joint statement by retired judges and former election commissioners stated, “In a democracy, perceptions of bias can be as damaging as actual misconduct. When doubts arise about a constitutional office’s impartiality, the path forward must involve dialogue, not dismissal.”
Citizens groups are also demanding that Parliament set up a neutral body or ethics panel to independently evaluate such issues going forward—especially where the presiding officer is at the center of the controversy.
Conclusion: A Test of Democratic Institutions
The ongoing standoff over Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation demand is no longer just about one man or one House. It has exposed vulnerabilities in India’s parliamentary procedures, especially in handling conflicts of interest involving constitutional authorities.
Unless Parliament finds a resolution rooted in transparency, accountability, and mutual respect for institutional boundaries, such deadlocks may become the norm, undermining the very idea of a deliberative democracy.
Whether this ends in compromise, apology, or further escalation, the outcome will be seen as a litmus test for India’s maturing parliamentary culture—and its ability to withstand political pressure while upholding constitutional decorum.
