The Congress-led Opposition has escalated its challenge to the ruling BJP by attempting to unseat Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, accusing him of exhibiting partisan behavior in presiding over the Upper House. This bold move, initiated during the Monsoon Session and formalized with a no-confidence notice signed by 70 Opposition MPs, represents a significant yet symbolic confrontation in the ongoing tussle between the government and the Opposition. However, the constitutional intricacies and the numerical dynamics in both Houses of Parliament make the prospect of successfully removing Dhankhar highly improbable.
As the Vice-President of India, Dhankhar holds the ex-officio position of Rajya Sabha Chairman, making his removal synonymous with ousting the Vice-President. This dual role is protected by stringent constitutional safeguards designed to ensure stability and prevent hasty actions. Articles 67(b), 92, and 100 of the Indian Constitution outline the complex process for such a removal, involving rigorous requirements in both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha.
The removal motion requires a minimum of 14 days' notice before it can be tabled in the Rajya Sabha. Once introduced, it must secure an absolute majority in the Upper House—more than half of its total membership, not just a majority of those present and voting. If the motion clears this hurdle, it then proceeds to the Lok Sabha, where it must be approved by a simple majority of members present and voting. Only after receiving approval in both Houses does the Chairman lose his position, which also entails relinquishing the office of Vice-President.
The Opposition's notice, supported by members from Congress, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), accuses Dhankhar of bias. Specific allegations include frequent interruptions of speeches by Opposition leaders, denying debates on critical issues, and displaying favoritism towards ruling party members. The Opposition has also cited instances of microphones being cut off during speeches, particularly those of Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, and alleged personal remarks by Dhankhar that undermined parliamentary decorum.
Despite these grievances, the numbers in Parliament reveal the daunting challenge facing the Opposition. In the 245-member Rajya Sabha, the ruling BJP-led NDA and its allies hold approximately 125 seats, while the Opposition commands around 112. This gives the government a comfortable edge. Even if the motion miraculously passed in the Rajya Sabha, it would face an even greater challenge in the Lok Sabha, where the NDA has a commanding majority with 293 seats compared to the Opposition's 238.
Given these figures, the motion's chances of success are negligible. It appears more as a political maneuver by the Opposition to spotlight alleged biases in the functioning of Parliament and to question the impartiality of the Rajya Sabha Chairman. For the BJP, this initiative poses no immediate threat to Dhankhar’s position but adds another layer to the intensifying political rivalry between the government and the Opposition.
The move also underscores the Opposition's strategy to challenge the ruling dispensation on multiple fronts, framing their actions as a defense of democratic principles and parliamentary norms. By targeting Dhankhar, the Opposition seeks to draw attention to what it perceives as a pattern of undermining democratic institutions under BJP rule. However, for the government, the motion is unlikely to translate into tangible consequences, serving instead as an opportunity to consolidate support within its ranks and highlight the Opposition’s limited numbers.
In the broader context, the Opposition’s push to unseat Dhankhar reflects its broader campaign to question the BJP's governance style and assert its role in upholding democratic accountability. The symbolic value of this motion, even if it fails, lies in keeping the discourse on institutional integrity alive, signaling to voters and observers its commitment to challenging the ruling party’s dominance as India heads towards the next general elections.
