By Sujit Bhar
A no-confidence motion in Parliament is a serious matter and needs to be taken note of in its right spirit and not essentially in the outcome it yields. If a large section of the legislators in the House, who might even form the entire Opposition, feel that there is enough evidence and objectivity in expressing no-confidence in either a government or a member, it may go ahead and give its statutory 14-day notice.
The Opposition has decided to move a resolution in the Rajya Sabha for the impeachment of Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who is also the ex-officio chairman of the Upper House. The primary reason given by the Opposition members is that the chairman has behaved in a partisan manner and this is not as per rules laid out in the Constitution for that high post. The notice has been given.
Within the Constitution of India, Article 67(b) deals with the framework for the removal of the vice-president from office. The Constitution doesn’t outline any specific grounds for the removal of the Rajya Sabha chairman, leaving it to the discretion of the members of Parliament, but the notice must clearly mention the intention of the parliamentarian(s) behind moving the resolution against the vice-president. That means the reason(s) should be clearly mentioned.
The numbers are surely not with the Opposition within the Rajya Sabha, which has a current total strength of 245, of whom 233 are elected and 12 appointed.
While such an impeachment is lawfully possible through a simple majority of the total members in the Upper House—this decision has to be ratified later by the Lok Sabha or Lower House, also through a simple majority—it must be remembered that two recent no-confidence motions, against the Narendra Modi government, in 2018 and in 2023, both failed in the Lok Sabha. The numbers have not improved much for the Opposition, hence this no-confidence motion should also, logically, fail.
Article 67 of the Constitution of India deals with the term of office of the vice-President. It says that the vice-president “shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office, provided that:
“(a) a Vice-President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office; (b) a Vice-President may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People; but no resolution for the purpose of this clause shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution; (c) a Vice-President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.”
Hence the process, while complex, leads to an attainable goal, provided the numbers are with the group moving such a resolution.
However, before talking about any outcome it would be pertinent to see why this motion, initiated by what is loosely called the INDIA group, has been moved. It is also to be seen in the light of the fact that this is the first time in the history of Indian Parliament that such a resolution—with Congress in the lead—has been moved against a vice-president of the country, also the ex-officio chairman of the Rajya Sabha. In effect, that adds little honour to the exalted position of a vice-president of a country. If anything, this is a national, if not international, pointer to the disharmony within Indian Parliament and maybe there remains a spot of doubt about its conduct.
The vice-president of the country represents the Indian republic at many international forums and it would remain the obligation of the Indian government to make sure that the person in that chair carries with him the reputation associated with the position while representing the country anywhere. While the INDIA group knows well that its motion is headed for a defeat, a smear on the high position itself is probably the object of this move.
The political parties within the INDIA group have alleged that the Rajya Sabha Chairman has shown “bias” towards the treasury benches and has brutally sidelined Opposition demands for certain debates and issues to be raised in the House. They have alleged that their voices have been stifled.
The government has hit back at this resolution, saying this was just a “diversionary tactic”, and that the Opposition was more intent on disruption rather than concentrating on serious businesses at hand. Since the Winter Session began, disruptions have been the order of the day. The BJP’s allegation against the Congress leadership was its purported connection with “anti-India” billionaire George Soros, who the government believes is out to unsettle the country. The Congress has hit back on several issues, including cases related to Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and his connection with the current government and other issues.
The motion has been supported by all Opposition parties, including the Trinamool Congress (TMC), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Samajwadi Party (SP). They have signed the motion, but the interesting development within this is that while Congress leader Jairam Ramesh did initiate the submission of the motion to the secretary-general of the Rajya Sabha, saying that the Opposition was compelled to take this step in the “interest of parliamentary democracy,” elsewhere leaders in the INDIA group are now pitching for West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to lead the group.
Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Rahul Gandhi’s stock seems to be low at the moment in this regard. Even leaders such as Supriya Sule and Lalu Prasad Yadav have pronounced Mamata’s name in this regard. Whether these comments in public would affect the voting on the resolution has to be carefully understood.
However, TMC has had a sort of love-hate relationship with Dhankhar. When Dhankhar was the governor of West Bengal, he clashed with the TMC leadership on a regular basis. This had created enough bile within the TMC ranks to last a lifetime, but early in 2022, during the vice-presidential election, TMC had abstained. Dhankhar was the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance candidate. It was touted as a clear understanding between the BJP and the TMC, with possible returns of favour to follow.
Hence, the actual voting strength of the Opposition on the fateful day would have to be observed with care. Abstentions could prove really disastrous for the motion and Congress’ position, as the leading party in the INDIA group might then take a hit. If this happens then while the Congress remains busy upping the ante on the resolution, the BJP’s aim of driving a wedge into Opposition unity might come true. This resolution, in effect, sets in motion other issues within the Indian political scenario.
The post appeared first on .
A no-confidence motion in Parliament is a serious matter and needs to be taken note of in its right spirit and not essentially in the outcome it yields. If a large section of the legislators in the House, who might even form the entire Opposition, feel that there is enough evidence and objectivity in expressing no-confidence in either a government or a member, it may go ahead and give its statutory 14-day notice.
The Opposition has decided to move a resolution in the Rajya Sabha for the impeachment of Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who is also the ex-officio chairman of the Upper House. The primary reason given by the Opposition members is that the chairman has behaved in a partisan manner and this is not as per rules laid out in the Constitution for that high post. The notice has been given.
Within the Constitution of India, Article 67(b) deals with the framework for the removal of the vice-president from office. The Constitution doesn’t outline any specific grounds for the removal of the Rajya Sabha chairman, leaving it to the discretion of the members of Parliament, but the notice must clearly mention the intention of the parliamentarian(s) behind moving the resolution against the vice-president. That means the reason(s) should be clearly mentioned.
The numbers are surely not with the Opposition within the Rajya Sabha, which has a current total strength of 245, of whom 233 are elected and 12 appointed.
While such an impeachment is lawfully possible through a simple majority of the total members in the Upper House—this decision has to be ratified later by the Lok Sabha or Lower House, also through a simple majority—it must be remembered that two recent no-confidence motions, against the Narendra Modi government, in 2018 and in 2023, both failed in the Lok Sabha. The numbers have not improved much for the Opposition, hence this no-confidence motion should also, logically, fail.
Article 67 of the Constitution of India deals with the term of office of the vice-President. It says that the vice-president “shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office, provided that:
“(a) a Vice-President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office; (b) a Vice-President may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People; but no resolution for the purpose of this clause shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution; (c) a Vice-President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.”
Hence the process, while complex, leads to an attainable goal, provided the numbers are with the group moving such a resolution.
However, before talking about any outcome it would be pertinent to see why this motion, initiated by what is loosely called the INDIA group, has been moved. It is also to be seen in the light of the fact that this is the first time in the history of Indian Parliament that such a resolution—with Congress in the lead—has been moved against a vice-president of the country, also the ex-officio chairman of the Rajya Sabha. In effect, that adds little honour to the exalted position of a vice-president of a country. If anything, this is a national, if not international, pointer to the disharmony within Indian Parliament and maybe there remains a spot of doubt about its conduct.
The vice-president of the country represents the Indian republic at many international forums and it would remain the obligation of the Indian government to make sure that the person in that chair carries with him the reputation associated with the position while representing the country anywhere. While the INDIA group knows well that its motion is headed for a defeat, a smear on the high position itself is probably the object of this move.
The political parties within the INDIA group have alleged that the Rajya Sabha Chairman has shown “bias” towards the treasury benches and has brutally sidelined Opposition demands for certain debates and issues to be raised in the House. They have alleged that their voices have been stifled.
The government has hit back at this resolution, saying this was just a “diversionary tactic”, and that the Opposition was more intent on disruption rather than concentrating on serious businesses at hand. Since the Winter Session began, disruptions have been the order of the day. The BJP’s allegation against the Congress leadership was its purported connection with “anti-India” billionaire George Soros, who the government believes is out to unsettle the country. The Congress has hit back on several issues, including cases related to Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and his connection with the current government and other issues.
The motion has been supported by all Opposition parties, including the Trinamool Congress (TMC), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Samajwadi Party (SP). They have signed the motion, but the interesting development within this is that while Congress leader Jairam Ramesh did initiate the submission of the motion to the secretary-general of the Rajya Sabha, saying that the Opposition was compelled to take this step in the “interest of parliamentary democracy,” elsewhere leaders in the INDIA group are now pitching for West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to lead the group.
Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Rahul Gandhi’s stock seems to be low at the moment in this regard. Even leaders such as Supriya Sule and Lalu Prasad Yadav have pronounced Mamata’s name in this regard. Whether these comments in public would affect the voting on the resolution has to be carefully understood.
However, TMC has had a sort of love-hate relationship with Dhankhar. When Dhankhar was the governor of West Bengal, he clashed with the TMC leadership on a regular basis. This had created enough bile within the TMC ranks to last a lifetime, but early in 2022, during the vice-presidential election, TMC had abstained. Dhankhar was the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance candidate. It was touted as a clear understanding between the BJP and the TMC, with possible returns of favour to follow.
Hence, the actual voting strength of the Opposition on the fateful day would have to be observed with care. Abstentions could prove really disastrous for the motion and Congress’ position, as the leading party in the INDIA group might then take a hit. If this happens then while the Congress remains busy upping the ante on the resolution, the BJP’s aim of driving a wedge into Opposition unity might come true. This resolution, in effect, sets in motion other issues within the Indian political scenario.
The post appeared first on .