 |
|
Jagdeep Dhankhar's sudden resignation as Vice President of India has ignited a wave of speculation and analysis regarding his motives and legacy. At 74 years old, his departure from the constitutional post, occurring mere weeks after suggesting a retirement influenced by 'divine interventions,' has left many pondering the true reasons behind his decision. While Dhankhar cited prioritizing his health as the primary factor, the timing and abruptness of his exit have fueled rumors and conjecture within political circles. This incident echoes historical precedents of Vice Presidents resigning for various reasons, including assuming the presidency or contesting presidential elections. The article delves into Dhankhar's tenure, highlighting the controversies and political leanings that defined his time in office. His background as a lawyer, coupled with his previous role as the West Bengal Governor, set the stage for a complex and often contentious relationship with the political landscape. His strained relationship with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee, marked by the blocking of several bills, foreshadowed the politically charged nature of his vice presidency. Despite this history, Banerjee's TMC abstained from opposing his vice-presidential candidacy, a gesture Dhankhar publicly acknowledged. The core of the article focuses on Dhankhar's perceived deviation from the apolitical nature traditionally associated with the Vice President's office. Accusations of making politically loaded statements in favor of the ruling BJP government and his active involvement in the Rajasthan assembly elections raised concerns about his impartiality. Furthermore, his public pronouncements on sensitive issues like conversion and population control further blurred the lines between his constitutional role and partisan politics. The Vice President's constitutional duties, primarily presiding over the Rajya Sabha as its ex-officio Chairman, demand neutrality and fairness. However, Dhankhar faced accusations of favoring the government's agenda, leading to an unprecedented, albeit unsuccessful, attempt by the opposition to remove him from his position. The article emphasizes Dhankhar's contentious relationship with the judiciary, particularly his criticism of the Supreme Court's invocation of Article 142. He characterized the Court's actions as wielding a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces,' a statement deemed constitutionally untenable by many. His criticism stemmed from the Court's attempts to establish timelines for governors to sign bills, a measure aimed at preventing unelected officials from obstructing the decisions of elected representatives. The author argues that Article 142, designed to address legal gaps and ambiguities, was legitimately used to strengthen democratic principles. Dhankhar's repeated assertions that the Supreme Court was acting as a 'super Parliament' were also viewed as inappropriate, raising fundamental questions about his understanding of judicial review and its role in a federal constitution. The article underscores the importance of judicial review in safeguarding civil liberties and upholding constitutionalism, particularly in resolving disputes between the central government and the states. The author points out that Dhankhar seemed to misunderstand the necessary limits placed on Parliament by the Constitution, a principle that also applies to the Supreme Court. While acknowledging Dhankhar's valid point about constitutional interpretation requiring a bench of five or more judges, the author ultimately disagrees with his views on several critical issues. Dhankhar's persistent attacks on the Basic Structure Doctrine, a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, were particularly concerning. This doctrine, which limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, has been rarely questioned by previous governments. However, Dhankhar openly challenged it, echoing the views of Indira Gandhi by asserting the ultimate authority of Parliament, free from any intervention. The author argues that this position effectively nullified constitutionalism and promoted majoritarianism. Dhankhar's criticism extended to judicial overreach, the collegium system, and the Court's interpretation of 'consultation' as 'concurrence.' His disapproval of the NJAC judgment and his criticism of the Chief Justice of India's participation in the selection of the CBI chief further highlighted his strained relationship with the judiciary. The article concludes by raising questions about the timing of Dhankhar's resignation in relation to certain events, including the alleged discovery of cash at a judge's residence. The author suggests that silence would have been a more appropriate course of action, given Dhankhar's role in potential impeachment proceedings. The article emphasizes that his departure was perplexing. The suddenness of his exit raises queries. The reasons for this hasty departure remain unclear. Dhankhar's tenure reveals complex political undercurrents within the Indian government.
The Vice President's role in India, as outlined by Article 66 of the Constitution, is significant, even if not directly involved in the day-to-day governance. The Vice President is elected by members of parliament, embodying a vital link between the legislative and executive branches. While second in the order of precedence, the Vice President wields considerable influence as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of Parliament. In this capacity, the Vice President serves as a neutral umpire, responsible for maintaining order and ensuring fair debate. However, Dhankhar's tenure was marked by accusations of partiality, with the opposition frequently alleging that he favored the ruling party's agenda. This perception of bias eroded trust in the office and fueled calls for his removal. Central to the controversy surrounding Dhankhar's vice presidency was his stance on judicial review and the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature. Dhankhar repeatedly criticized the Supreme Court's exercise of its power to review laws and executive actions, arguing that it encroached upon the domain of Parliament. This view clashed with the established principle of judicial independence, which safeguards civil liberties and ensures that the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution. In particular, Dhankhar questioned the Basic Structure Doctrine, a landmark judicial principle that prevents Parliament from altering the fundamental features of the Constitution. This doctrine has been used to protect core values such as democracy, secularism, and fundamental rights from legislative overreach. Dhankhar's opposition to the Basic Structure Doctrine raised concerns that he sought to undermine the judiciary's ability to safeguard constitutional principles. His position aligned with a view of parliamentary supremacy, which holds that the will of the elected representatives should prevail over all other considerations. This view, however, is at odds with the Constitution's emphasis on the rule of law and the protection of minority rights. The author stresses the importance of judicial review in resolving disputes between the central government and the states, ensuring that neither oversteps its constitutional boundaries. A robust judiciary is essential for protecting the civil liberties of citizens and ensuring that the government remains accountable to the Constitution. By questioning the legitimacy of judicial review, Dhankhar challenged a fundamental aspect of Indian constitutionalism. His stance reflected a broader debate about the role of the judiciary in a democratic society and the balance of power between different branches of government. The author contends that Dhankhar's actions promoted a form of majoritarianism, where the will of the majority trumps the rights of the minority. This approach threatens to undermine the Constitution's commitment to equality, justice, and the protection of individual freedoms. The judiciary serves as a vital check on the power of the majority, ensuring that the rights of all citizens are protected, regardless of their background or beliefs. The author highlights Dhankhar's criticism of the collegium system, the process by which judges are appointed in India. Dhankhar argued that the collegium system lacks transparency and accountability, and that it should be replaced with a more inclusive and representative process. However, critics of Dhankhar's position contend that his proposed reforms would politicize judicial appointments and undermine the independence of the judiciary. The debate over the collegium system reflects a broader struggle to balance the need for judicial independence with the desire for greater accountability. Dhankhar's views on these issues sparked controversy and raised questions about his commitment to upholding the Constitution and safeguarding the rule of law. His actions had potentially significant consequences for the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature, and for the future of Indian democracy.
Beyond his stance on constitutional matters, Dhankhar's political pronouncements as Vice President also drew criticism. The Vice President is expected to remain above partisan politics, serving as a neutral figure who represents the entire nation. However, Dhankhar frequently made statements that appeared to align with the ruling party's agenda, leading to accusations of bias and undermining the impartiality of the office. His active involvement in political events, such as the Rajasthan assembly elections, further blurred the lines between his constitutional role and partisan politics. These actions raised concerns that Dhankhar was using his position to advance the interests of a particular political party, rather than serving as a neutral guardian of the Constitution. The author notes that Dhankhar's background as a lawyer did not always translate into a deep understanding of constitutional principles. Despite his legal training, Dhankhar appeared to misunderstand the limits placed on Parliament by the Constitution, particularly with regard to the protection of fundamental rights. This misunderstanding led him to adopt positions that were inconsistent with the Constitution's commitment to individual liberties and the rule of law. Dhankhar's tenure as Vice President was marked by a tension between his constitutional obligations and his political beliefs. He struggled to reconcile his role as a neutral arbiter with his desire to promote a particular political agenda. This tension ultimately undermined his credibility and contributed to the controversy surrounding his vice presidency. The article concludes by raising questions about the circumstances surrounding Dhankhar's resignation. While he cited health reasons for his departure, the timing of his announcement, coupled with other events, fueled speculation about the true motives behind his decision. The author suggests that Dhankhar's resignation may have been related to his controversial views on the judiciary and his potential involvement in impeachment proceedings. Ultimately, Dhankhar's legacy as Vice President will be debated for years to come. His tenure was marked by controversy, and his actions raised fundamental questions about the role of the Vice President in a democratic society. His views on the judiciary, the Basic Structure Doctrine, and the balance of power between different branches of government sparked intense debate and challenged established constitutional principles. The legacy of Jagdeep Dhankhar remains a subject of political debate. The controversy that surrounded him cannot be ignored. The future of checks and balances within the government will be influenced by Dhankhar's time in power. The balance will be affected by future justices and VP's.
Furthermore, the Vice President's office traditionally embodies a sense of neutrality and impartiality. Dhankhar's critics argued that he often blurred the lines between his constitutional role and his political affiliations, making statements that appeared to favor the ruling party. These actions eroded public trust in the office and raised concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the Rajya Sabha proceedings. The author also points out that Dhankhar's criticism of the judiciary often lacked nuance and understanding. While legitimate concerns may exist about judicial overreach or the appointment of judges, Dhankhar's sweeping criticisms appeared to undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole. This approach risked politicizing the judiciary and eroding its role as a check on the power of the other branches of government. In conclusion, Jagdeep Dhankhar's tenure as Vice President of India was marked by controversy and debate. His actions and statements raised fundamental questions about the role of the Vice President, the balance of power between different branches of government, and the protection of constitutional principles. His legacy will continue to be debated and analyzed for years to come, as India grapples with the challenges of maintaining a robust and vibrant democracy.