The no-confidence motion moved by the Opposition against Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has been rejected by Deputy Chairman Harivansh, who ruled that the motion was brought forward with the intent to "mar the reputation" of the Vice President. In a detailed order issued by Harivansh, he called the motion "flawed" and claimed that it had been hastily drafted, specifically designed to tarnish Dhankhar’s image. The Deputy Chairman emphasized that the motion was part of a broader effort to undermine the dignity of constitutional institutions, a sentiment that has been echoed by the ruling party in response to the Opposition's actions.
Harivansh’s rejection of the motion came after he pointed out several procedural irregularities. First, the motion failed to meet the requirement of a 14-day notice, which is mandatory under the rules for moving such a motion. Additionally, Harivansh highlighted a fundamental error: Dhankhar’s name was misspelled in the notice, suggesting a lack of seriousness and respect for the process. While the motion did manage to collect the necessary 60 signatures from MPs, which was in line with the technical requirement, the flaws in the overall handling of the motion led to its rejection.
In his ruling, which was delivered to the House by Rajya Sabha Secretary General PC Mody, Harivansh stated that the impeachment motion was a deliberate attempt to undermine the integrity of India’s constitutional framework. The Deputy Chairman warned that such actions, aimed at undermining the Vice President’s position, threatened to erode the public’s trust in democratic institutions and processes. The motion, which was submitted under Article 67(B) of the Constitution, garnered support from several key Opposition parties, including the Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress, and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The motion led to an uproar in the Rajya Sabha, highlighting the growing discord between the Opposition and the ruling government.
This motion marked a historic moment as it was the first time in Rajya Sabha’s history that an attempt was made to remove the Chairman from office. The Opposition, particularly the INDIA alliance, accused Chairman Dhankhar of acting in a biased and partisan manner. They raised concerns about his handling of several key issues, particularly during the ongoing winter session of Parliament. The Opposition's criticism intensified as the session progressed, with both sides engaging in frequent clashes over the functioning of the Rajya Sabha and other national issues. These tensions were further exacerbated by the Opposition's view that Dhankhar had failed to uphold impartiality in his role as Chairman.
In defense of Dhankhar, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju strongly supported the Chairman’s conduct and his contributions to maintaining the dignity of the Rajya Sabha. Rijiju, addressing the House, described Dhankhar as a "farmer’s son" and praised him for his steadfastness in upholding the values and dignity of the House. Rijiju criticized the Opposition for attempting to undermine the authority of the Chair, accusing them of disrespecting the institution. He remarked, “You have no right to be members if you can't respect the Chair,” underscoring the responsibility of MPs to uphold the constitutional values and respect the position of the Chairman, regardless of political differences.
The rejection of the no-confidence motion has become a focal point of political discourse, highlighting the ongoing power struggle between the Opposition and the ruling government. The ruling party has framed the rejection as a victory for constitutional integrity, while the Opposition sees it as part of an ongoing battle to safeguard democratic values and the independence of Parliament. The clash over the motion has further deepened the political divide in the country, setting the stage for more intense debates and confrontations as Parliament continues its winter session.
The debate surrounding Dhankhar's position and the Opposition’s push for his removal comes amid broader concerns over the functioning of parliamentary procedures, transparency, and fairness. It also reflects the larger ideological battles that have defined the political landscape in India, with both sides accusing each other of undermining democratic principles in the pursuit of power.
