Election Commission starts process to elect new Vice President
Dhankhar tendered his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on July 21, citing health concerns.
"The MHA vide its Gazette Notification S.O.3354(E) dated July 22, 2025, has notified the resignation of Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, Vice President of India," the ECI said in a statement, adding that it is, under Article 324, "mandated" to conduct the election to the office of the Vice President of India.
The election to the office of the Vice President of India is governed by The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and the rules made under it -- The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1974.
"Accordingly, the Election Commission of India has already started the preparations relating to the Vice-Presidential Elections, 2025. On completion of the preparatory activities, the announcement of the Election Schedule to the office of the Vice-President of India will follow as soon as possible," the polls body said.
The ECI also mentioned that major pre-announcement activities, which are already been started, include preparation of Electoral College, which consists of elected as well as nominated members of Rajya Sabha as well as Lok Sabha; Finalisation of Returning Officer/ Assistant Returning Officer(s); and Preparation and dissemination of Background Material on all the previous Vice-Presidential elections.
Until that election is concluded, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha steps in to discharge the Vice President's parliamentary duties, including presiding over proceedings in the Upper House.
However, this temporary arrangement does not confer the title of Acting Vice President or confer broader constitutional authority beyond the Rajya Sabha chairmanship.
According to experts, under the Constitution, the Election Commission must fill the vacancy "as soon as possible", typically within six months. The new Vice President, once elected, will serve a full five-year term rather than simply completing the remainder of Dhankhar's tenure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
15 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC asks Justice Varma why he appeared before inquiry panel if it was unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee probing the unaccounted cash row if it was unconstitutional, reported Bar and Bench. 'Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past,' said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih. The bench also questioned why Varma waited for the inquiry committee to submit its report before moving the court, according to Live Law. The court was hearing Varma's plea against the committee's report that indicted him in the unaccounted cash row. The Allahabad High Court judge had also challenged the recommendation made by Sanjiv Khanna – the chief justice of India when the report was submitted – to the president and the prime minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. He was a judge at the Delhi High Court at that time. The judge said he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Amid the row, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On Monday, Varma told the Supreme Court that he had appeared before the three-member inquiry committee because he thought it would 'find out who the cash belongs to', reported Live Law. Alleging that the committee did not follow procedure, Varma's counsel Kapil Sibal said that judges can only be removed from their post as per Article 124 of the Constitution and not through public debates based on the report. Article 124 deals with the composition of the Supreme Court, the appointment and removal of judges, and their qualifications. 'Tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, man already stands convicted,' said Sibal. 'All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution – release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, public discussion, media interaction, accusation against judge, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited.' He was referring to a report released by the Supreme Court on March 22, which included a video and three photographs, showing bundles of notes that were allegedly recovered from the judge's home. The court had also set up the three-member committee to look into the allegations against Varma. The redacted report showed that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had written to Varma on March 21, asking him to 'account for the presence of money/cash' in a room located in his bungalow. Sibal stated on Monday that by releasing the report, the process to remove Varma from his post had been politicised, according to Live Law. However, the Supreme Court said that the judge could not raise these points after having participated in the inquiry process. The bench adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, asking Sibal to submit the in-house inquiry committee's report. The committee, in its report, concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' in the charges against Varma. The report, dated May 3, held that the judge's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. However, the report did not address questions about how the fire started, how much money was found, where the cash came from or where it is now. After Varma declined to voluntarily retire or resign, Sanjiv Khanna sent the final in-house inquiry committee report on the incident to the president and the prime minister. Varma had challenged the committee's report ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. On Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion to remove Varma. The minister added that the decision to impeach the High Court judge was unanimous and that 152 MPs from the ruling coalition and the Opposition parties had signed the motion. To impeach a judge in Parliament, a removal motion is required to be signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the matter. The Parliament votes on the impeachment if the committee finds misconduct. If the motion gets two-thirds of the votes, the president is advised to remove the judge.
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Rajya Sabha adjourned for day over SIR issue
The Rajya Sabha was disrupted once again on Monday (July 28, 2025) as Opposition MPs continued to protest over the issue of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar. The Upper House was adjourned for the day little after 2 p.m. on Monday (July 28, 2025), after being adjourned twice in the pre-lunch sitting. Also Read: Parliament Monsoon session LIVE Day 6 | July 28, 2025 During the Zero Hour, Deputy Chairman Harivansh said he has received 26 notices under Rule 267 demanding discussion on various issues, including SIR and alleged discrimination against Bengali migrant workers in other states. He declined all the adjournment notices and called Sudha Murty (nominated member) to make her Zero Hour mention. However, Opposition members, including those from the TMC and the Congress, were on their feet protesting against the Chair's decision. They were raising slogans like 'Vote Ki Chori Band Karo' (stop vote theft), and the Chair adjourned the proceedings till 12 noon. As soon as the House re-assembled for the Question Hour at 12 noon, various Opposition MPs were on their feet and Sushmita Dev (TMC) trooped into the Well, and sought to raise various issues. As the din continued, the proceedings were adjourned again till 2 p.m. When the Upper House met at 2 p.m., the Chair tried to continue the debate on The Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill 2025. However, Opposition MPs continued to raise slogans demanding a debate on the SIR issue and that the exercise be stopped. Some MPs also trooped into the Well of the House. Amid the din, the Chair adjourned the House for the day. Earlier, as the House met for the day, newly elected Rajya Sabha members I.S. Inbadurai and M. Dhanapal, both AIADMK, were administered oath. The deputy chairman also informed the House that notices must be submitted digitally, noting that some members are still submitting physical notices. He said all notices can be submitted via the Digital Sansad portal.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Mass inclusion and not exclusion should be goal of Bihar SIR, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) pushed harder for the Election Commission of India (ECI)) to accept Aadhaar and the Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC) as identity documents in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR), saying 'mass inclusion' and not 'en masse exclusion' should be the outcome of the exercise in the poll-bound State. With three more days left for the publication of the draft electoral roll on August 1, the ECI continued to resist the court's suggestion, saying Aadhaar, EPIC and ration cards could be forged easily. On July 10, the apex court had asked the Election Commission to consider these three documents to ward off the spectre of mass disenfranchisement even as petitioners, ranging from activists to political parties, called the SIR a 'citizenship screening'. Bihar SIR row hearing updates 'Any document on earth can be forged. Maybe one EPIC in a 1000 may not be genuine. That can be take up on a case-to-case basis… For that matter, any document on this earth can be forged,' Justice Surya Kant, accompanied by Justice Joymalya Bagchi, addressed the Election Commission (EC). Justice Kant said Aadhaar and EPIC have a 'presumption of correctness'. Aadhaar has a system of being authenticated when in use. EPIC was issued by the EC itself. 'So, proceed with Aadhaar and EPIC… Include these two documents in the list of 11,' Justice Kant said. Justice Bagchi reasoned that none of the 11 'indicative' documents acceptable as proof of identity were of a conclusive nature, be it residence or caste certificates. 'According to you none of these 11 documents are conclusive. They are just documents to accompany the enumeration forms. So if someone gives an Aadhaar card as proof of identity, why will you not evaluate the claim of the person to be in the electoral roll?' Justice Bagchi questioned the EC's logic. Senior advocates KK Venugopal and Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the EC. The petitioners were represented by senior advocates like Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan. The court, which rose early, said it would announce on July 29 an early date and a proper schedule for hearing the final arguments in the case. Mr. Sankaranaraynan alerted the Bench about the proximity of the date of publication of the draft roll, August 1. But Justice Kant was unperturbed, saying 'it was only a draft'. Noting that the petitioners had not insisted on any interim relief of the stay of the publication or a freeze on the SIR exercise, the judge assured the petitioners that publication of the draft roll would not shrink the powers of the court to overturn any decision of the EC, provided the petitioners prove their case. The senior lawyer said the publication of the draft roll would leave 4.5 crore people excluded from it rudderless. The burden would be transferred onto them to prove their identity and citizenship, file objections and even seek a review. At this point, Justice Bagchi drew the counsel's attention to the EC affidavit which stated that voters who were in the existing 2025 electoral roll of Bihar would feature in the draft roll to be published on August 1, provided they submitted their enumeration forms, with or without documents. The existing electoral roll was published in Bihar on January 7, 2015 after a special summary revision of the electoral roll. 'In substance, each elector included in the 2025 electoral roll shall form part of the draft roll merely on submission of the enumeration form,' the 88-page ECI affidavit had submitted. The electors who were unable to submit their enumeration forms with documents in time for the draft roll had another opportunity to be included in the final roll. 'This claims period is stipulated for another period of 31 days after publication of the draft roll, ie, till September 1, 2025,' the ECI clarified. The final roll would be published on September 30, 2025. 'Even after the publication of the final roll, new electors can be enrolled up to the last date of nominations of the forthcoming Bihar elections… Any apprehension of huge disenfranchisement is misleading and non-existent,' the ECI has assured. Further, the ECI said electors whose names already feature in the electoral roll of Bihar in 2003, when the last intensive revision was held, were exempted from furnishing documents to prove their eligibility. 'They are only required to file the partially pre-filled enumeration form along with the extract of the 2003 roll,' the affidavit had said.
