What is Article 67(a) of the Indian Constitution invoked by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar?
The Ministry of Home Affairs added his resignation letter to the Gazatte the next day, thus making it official.
Also Read: Congress says 'far deeper reasons' behind Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation
The Vice-President of India holds office for a term of five years from the date of entering office, as outlined in Article 67 of the Constitution. However, the office can be vacated earlier through resignation, removal, or death. Article 67(a) allows explicitly for resignation:
''The Vice-President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.' 'Constitution of India, Article 67(a)
Mr. Dhankhar, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, resigned hours after he presided over the first sitting of the Rajya Sabha as chairperson during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, which began on July 21. Mr. Dhankhar, 74, assumed office in August 2022 and his tenure was till 2027.
Also Read: Parliament Monsoon Session Day 2 updates
What does Article 67(a) state?
Article 67 of the Constitution outlines the conditions under which the Vice-President can resign from office. Clause (a) refers to voluntary resignation by the Vice-President through a written letter addressed to the President of India. This provision does not require parliamentary approval and takes effect immediately upon receipt by the President.
What happens after the resignation?
Following a resignation under Article 67(a), the office of the Vice-President becomes vacant. The Rajya Sabha, where the Vice-President serves as ex-officio Chairman, is temporarily presided over by the Deputy Chairman. The Election Commission of India is responsible for initiating the election process to fill the vacancy, following procedures laid out in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952.
Resignation under Article 67(a) is a straightforward process with no legal or parliamentary barriers. Once the President accepts the resignation, the process is deemed complete. Vice-President Dhankhar is among the few holders of the office to have resigned before completing the five-year term.
The constitutional process for electing a new Vice-President is now expected to follow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Delhi Confidential: ‘Be Kind'
Amid the pandemonium in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, Deputy Chairman Harivansh had a special request for the Opposition — to let MDMK MP Vaiko raise an issue in the Zero Hour as he (Vaiko) is retiring on Thursday. 'Be kind to him,' Harivansh requested the Opposition MPs. Seeing CPI(M) member John Brittas trying to calm down his colleagues in the Opposition, Harivansh asked him to 'help Vaiko'. In his last chance to raise a matter of public importance during this term, the senior MP known for his fiery speeches, spoke on his favourite topic — the plight of fishermen. He urged the Central government to take immediate steps to secure release of Indian fishermen arrested by Sri Lankan authorities. A press briefing by the Congress leadership from J&K on the issue of statehood was conspicuously missed by the party's state president — Tariq Hameed Karra. Those who addressed the media at the party headquarters in Delhi were J&K CLP leader Ghulam Ahmad Mir, former Madhya Pradesh CM Digvijaya Singh, general secretary in-charge (J&K and Ladakh) Naseer Hussain and spokesperson Ravinder Sharma. Karra was present at a meeting of Congress leaders from J&K with the party brass in Delhi on Tuesday evening. His absence led to some speculation in the party circles in Srinagar and Delhi, but sources close to him said he was unwell. With the shift to the new complex imminent, officers from ministries located in North Block and other government buildings have started visiting their new offices at the Common Central Secretariat (CCS) buildings. A rush of government cars can be seen entering and exiting the complex, which is yet to be inaugurated. It is learnt that officers have been going to see their new offices, try out their desks and see to the finishing touches. The shifting is likely to start after the Monsoon Session of Parliament ends in August.
Economic Times
14 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Your Honour, that's misogyny talking
We often witness flashes of patriarchy and misogyny, only to dismiss them as outliers, or view them as symptoms of a society in transition. But when those moments emanate from institutions, we seek remedy - such as the Supreme Court - then it becomes necessary to question them. On Tuesday, while hearing an alimony case, CJI B R Gavai expressed his incredulity that a 'well-educated' woman was demanding a divorce settlement from her husband. His outburst reflects a mindset that cannot fathom the possibility that a woman could have contributed to her husband's wealth and is, thus, a rightful claimant to a share upon the dissolution of their is not the first time that top court judges have made observations that reflect a skewed view. A few months ago, Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted interim bail to a 23-year-old man accused of rape. By their account, a 40-year-old woman 'is no baby', and her complaint - considered credible by the police - was deficient because 'a single hand can't clap'. Unfortunately, examples of such egregious gender insensitivity veering towards misogyny crop up far too often in the higher stereotypes - more so those rooted in gender - hinder the transformative project of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is guardian of the Constitution, which recognises equality as a right. Not only does the apex court guard the integrity of the Constitution, it also provides a moral compass for society. In 2023, it recognised the need for gender sensitisation, producing a booklet for the legal community with the aim of 'actively challenging and dispelling harmful stereotypes on the basis of gender'. Perhaps it's time for judges to read this publication - so that the courts can live up to their promise.
News18
14 minutes ago
- News18
SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates
The top court has said that the gravity of the allegations and procedural lapses in the bail process warranted intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution The Supreme Court on July 21 set aside a Patna High Court order granting bail to Vandana Gupta, a former superintendent of a protection home in Bihar's Patna, accused of sexually exploiting women inmates, many of whom belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances made it imperative to cancel the bail and direct the accused to surrender within four weeks. The bench observed that the allegations against the accused were grave and, if established, reflected a gross misuse of public office. It was alleged that during her tenure as superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Gaighat, Patna, Gupta administered intoxicating substances to female inmates, subjected them to sexual exploitation and mental torture, and orchestrated their trafficking to influential individuals under the pretext of protection. The court held that the release of the accused on bail could seriously undermine the trial process by posing a threat to key witnesses. It said that the conduct attributed to the accused was not only a betrayal of the institutional trust placed in her but also a possible obstruction to justice, especially considering her reinstatement to a similar position in another protection home following her release. The court was also critical of the procedural irregularity committed by the High Court in granting bail without compliance with Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This provision mandates that notice be issued to the victim before deciding a bail application in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. The bench held that the appellant-victim had not been made a party in the High Court proceedings, thereby denying her the right to be heard. Referring to the precedent laid down in Shabeen Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that cryptic bail orders, especially in serious matters involving abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights, cannot be allowed to stand. The bench stated that granting bail without assigning proper reasons in such cases not only offends judicial discipline but also has the potential to affect public confidence in the administration of justice. The bench emphasised that while cancellation of bail is not to be exercised routinely, it is justified where the nature of allegations shakes the conscience of the court and the liberty of the accused poses a threat to the integrity of the trial. The court observed that the nature of offences, coupled with the accused's reinstatement, indicated her influence within the administrative structure, raising concerns about witness tampering and fair trial. The FIR in the case was registered in 2022 following the intervention of the Patna High Court, which had taken suo motu cognisance based on a media report highlighting the ordeal of the inmates. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. The appellant-victim contended that the accused deliberately used her official position to exploit women inmates and facilitated their abuse by powerful outsiders. According to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, several women disclosed being sent out of the institution for non-consensual sexual acts and, in case of resistance, were drugged and assaulted within the premises. Further allegations pointed to unidentified men gaining access to the home and exploiting the inmates in collusion with the staff. After securing bail, Gupta was reportedly given charge of another protection home, a decision which the court noted demonstrated administrative complicity. While the State supported the victim's plea, the standing counsel was unable to justify the government's action in reinstating the accused despite pending charges of serious misconduct and criminal offences. In defence, Gupta's counsel argued that she had spent nearly 500 days in custody since her arrest on August 27, 2022, and that a detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage could prejudice the pending trial. The court, however, dismissed these arguments, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the procedural flaws in the HC's order required urgent correction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the High Court's bail order dated January 18, 2024. It also directed that adequate protection and support be extended to all victims involved in the case by the trial court and local administration. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : patna high court sexual exploitation supreme court view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
