Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and Janata Dal (United) MP Harivansh dismissed the no-confidence motion against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, citing "procedural impropriety" and alleging that it was an attempt to "malign the incumbent Vice President."
This decision followed the submission of a notice by opposition MPs on December 10, seeking Dhankhar’s removal on grounds of conducting the Upper House proceedings in an "extremely partisan manner."
The opposition’s notice, purportedly signed by 60 Rajya Sabha MPs, was submitted under Article 67(b) of the Constitution, which provides for the removal of the vice president through a resolution passed by the Rajya Sabha and agreed to by the Lok Sabha.
The article specifies that such a resolution requires a minimum of 14 days’ notice before being moved. Given that the notice was submitted on December 10, the resolution could only be considered after December 24.
However, the ongoing 266th session of the Rajya Sabha is scheduled to conclude on December 20, making the resolution’s consideration unfeasible within the current session.
Harivansh highlighted several deficiencies in the notice, describing it as "casual and cavalier." Key issues in the notice included absence of a specific addressee, incorrect spelling of the vice president’s name, failure to include a resolution text and reliance on "unauthenticated" media reports and documents.
He asserted that these flaws raised questions about the notice’s credibility and intent.
“A look at the notice reveals it could not be more casual and cavalier, wanting on every conceivable aspect and severally flawed – absence of addressee, absence of resolution text, incumbent Vice President’s name not correctly spelt in the entire petition, documents and videos asserted not made part, premised on links of disjointed media reports without authentication and many more,” Harivansh said.
He further accused the opposition of attempting to trivialize and demean the constitutional office through a coordinated media campaign involving press conferences and social media posts by opposition leaders, including the Leader of Opposition (LoP).
Citing a precedent, Harivansh referred to a similar removal notice rejected in September 2020 by then-Chairman Venkaiah Naidu due to procedural lapses under Article 67(b).
Drawing parallels, he described the current notice as a calculated effort to secure publicity and damage the vice president’s personal and institutional reputation.
“The notice's lack of bona fides, and subsequent events unfolding revealed it being a calculated unwholesome attempt to garnish publicity; run down the constitutional institution; insinuate the personal image of the incumbent Vice President— notably, the first from the agricultural community to hold this office in the history of Independent India,” he added.
In his ruling, Harivansh concluded, “In view of the above the notice is held as an act of impropriety, severely flawed, apparently drawn in haste and hurry to marred reputation of the incumbent Vice President and aimed to damage the constitutional institution. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.”
A detailed order outlining the reasoning behind this decision will be issued in due course.
This decision followed the submission of a notice by opposition MPs on December 10, seeking Dhankhar’s removal on grounds of conducting the Upper House proceedings in an "extremely partisan manner."
The opposition’s notice, purportedly signed by 60 Rajya Sabha MPs, was submitted under Article 67(b) of the Constitution, which provides for the removal of the vice president through a resolution passed by the Rajya Sabha and agreed to by the Lok Sabha.
The article specifies that such a resolution requires a minimum of 14 days’ notice before being moved. Given that the notice was submitted on December 10, the resolution could only be considered after December 24.
However, the ongoing 266th session of the Rajya Sabha is scheduled to conclude on December 20, making the resolution’s consideration unfeasible within the current session.
Harivansh highlighted several deficiencies in the notice, describing it as "casual and cavalier." Key issues in the notice included absence of a specific addressee, incorrect spelling of the vice president’s name, failure to include a resolution text and reliance on "unauthenticated" media reports and documents.
He asserted that these flaws raised questions about the notice’s credibility and intent.
“A look at the notice reveals it could not be more casual and cavalier, wanting on every conceivable aspect and severally flawed – absence of addressee, absence of resolution text, incumbent Vice President’s name not correctly spelt in the entire petition, documents and videos asserted not made part, premised on links of disjointed media reports without authentication and many more,” Harivansh said.
He further accused the opposition of attempting to trivialize and demean the constitutional office through a coordinated media campaign involving press conferences and social media posts by opposition leaders, including the Leader of Opposition (LoP).
Citing a precedent, Harivansh referred to a similar removal notice rejected in September 2020 by then-Chairman Venkaiah Naidu due to procedural lapses under Article 67(b).
Drawing parallels, he described the current notice as a calculated effort to secure publicity and damage the vice president’s personal and institutional reputation.
“The notice's lack of bona fides, and subsequent events unfolding revealed it being a calculated unwholesome attempt to garnish publicity; run down the constitutional institution; insinuate the personal image of the incumbent Vice President— notably, the first from the agricultural community to hold this office in the history of Independent India,” he added.
In his ruling, Harivansh concluded, “In view of the above the notice is held as an act of impropriety, severely flawed, apparently drawn in haste and hurry to marred reputation of the incumbent Vice President and aimed to damage the constitutional institution. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.”
A detailed order outlining the reasoning behind this decision will be issued in due course.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment