RS secretary general is returning officer for vice presidential poll
The election was necessitated after Jagdeep Dhankhar's surprise resignation as vice president on Monday evening, citing health issues. His term was to end on August 10, 2027.
In a statement, the Election Commission (EC) said that in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and with the consent of the deputy chairman of Rajya Sabha, it has appointed Mody as the returning officer for the vice presidential election, 2025.
The EC has also appointed Garima Jain, Joint Secretary, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, and Vijay Kumar, Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, as assistant returning officers during the course of the election.
The poll authority, in consultation with the central government, appoints a returning officer, who will have his or her office in the national capital, and may also appoint one or more assistant returning officers.
According to convention, either the Lok Sabha secretary general or the Rajya Sabha secretary general is appointed as returning officer by rotation.
During the last vice presidential election, the secretary general of the Lok Sabha was the returning officer.
The poll authority has started constituting the electoral college comprising MPs of both Houses of Parliament. Both elected and nominated members are eligible to vote in the vice presidential election.
The Union home ministry on Tuesday formally notified Dhankhar's resignation from the office of the vice president.
According to Clause 2 of Article 68 of the Constitution, an election to fill a vacancy in the office of the vice president occurring due to his death, resignation or removal, or otherwise, will be held 'as soon as possible" after it goes vacant.
The person elected to fill the vacancy will be entitled to hold office 'for the full term of five years from the date on which he enters… office".
From the day the notification is issued, 'calling the electoral college to vote", and till the day of the poll, a period of 30 days is stipulated.
A person cannot be elected as the vice president unless he is a citizen of India, has completed 35 years of age and is qualified for election as a member of the Rajya Sabha.
A person is also not eligible if he holds any office of profit under the government of India or a state government or any subordinate local authority. PTI NAB DIV DIV
view comments
First Published:
July 25, 2025, 14:00 IST
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
EC must stick to its mandate of holding free and fair polls: Manoj K Jha
As the Supreme Court on Monday told the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar and voter cards for the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, Opposition Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Rajya Sabha MP Manoj K Jha tells Preetha Nair that the poll panel must behave like a constitutional body and stick to its mandate of conducting free and fair elections in the country. Excerpts: EC data says over 65 lakh voters may not figure in Bihar's draft electoral roll. Does it validate the Opposition's concerns on disenfranchisement? We have been consistently saying that the Election Commission is doing the exercise with a hallmark of opacity. For instance, if you look at the different categories— such as diseased, permanently shifted, untraceable or found to be registered at different places—shows lack of transparency. When people are not available, they presume they have moved out. That presumption is flawed. We will watch each and every entry in these categories, once the numbers are shared with our district and state level units, but more importantly, we will go by the Supreme Court, because somewhere the Election Commission has defied their direction by not incorporating Aadhaar, EPIC card and ration card as documents for the SIR. Did you ask EC to share the details of the voters who are excluded from the draft electoral roll? Yes. We have asked details of each category. We will not allow the Election Commission to do it in a brazen manner, where the very idea of inclusion gets lost. The 2024 general election was conducted on the basis of these numbers. Now if they are saying the numbers were flawed, then that election should be called null and void. The EC said that Aadhaar and Voter ID can't be relied upon. The denial of the Aadhaar card, voter ID card and ration cards are in the direction of disenfranchisement. I think that they have decided it much before the exercise. Bihar is one of the most document deficient states. However, Aadhaar has a penetration of 86- 87%.
Hans India
30 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rajya Sabha to hold debate on 'Op Sindoor' today; PM Modi likely to participate
New Delhi: A comprehensive discussion on 'Operation Sindoor' is scheduled to begin in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday as part of the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament. There is also anticipation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi may participate during the course of the discussion, underlining the significance the government places on national security. Key ministers, including Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, are expected to participate in the debate, which aims to highlight the strategic and diplomatic dimensions of India's recent counter-terror operation. The debate follows an intense discussion in the Lok Sabha on Monday, where Defence Minister Rajnath Singh delivered the opening remarks and issued a stern warning to Pakistan. He stated that India would not hesitate to resume strikes if provoked again. 'Let this be a clear message to those who support terror. India will respond decisively to any act of aggression,' Singh said, drawing loud applause from the treasury benches. Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, was India's military response to the deadly April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, J&K, which resulted in the loss of 26 lives, including many tourists. The operation was a joint effort by the Indian Army, Air Force, and intelligence agencies, aimed at dismantling cross-border terror infrastructure. According to Singh's statement in the Lok Sabha, the Indian armed forces eliminated over 100 terrorists during the operation. Nine terror infrastructure targets across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir were destroyed through precision strikes. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar also addressed the House, highlighting the diplomatic efforts that ensured international support and understanding for India's actions. Prime Minister Narendra Modi lauded the speeches of both Singh and Jaishankar, calling them 'insightful' and commending the courage and professionalism of the Indian armed forces. 'Their remarks reflect the strength and determination of New India,' PM Modi said. As the Rajya Sabha prepares to take up the issue, the discussion is expected to shed further light on the execution and impact of Operation Sindoor.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Presidential Reference to SC can help redraw boundaries between institutions
The upcoming hearing in the Supreme Court of the Presidential Reference arising from the Court's judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) is of seminal constitutional significance. This is because of the perceived encroachment of the states' defined sovereign functions and the troubling non-observance of conventional discipline in the exercise of high constitutional power. The Court's advisory opinion, though not binding, will have significant persuasive value for the exercise of sovereign power by the states and the central government in the future. In its adjudicatory decision, the Court has indicted the Tamil Nadu Governor for withholding assent for an unreasonably long time to bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. It held that his conduct was unconstitutional and it was permissible for the Court to read into the silences of the Constitution an implicit obligation on the Governor's part to exercise constitutional discretion reasonably and impartially. Relying on government circulars, the Court held that decisions by the Governor and the President concerning assent to bills are required to be taken within three months of the date of receipt of the government's recommendation for assent. The judgment is unexceptionable for its constitutional logic as far as the Governor's conduct is concerned. However, the extension of the Court's reasoning to the exercise of presidential prerogatives and its suggestion to the President to seek the Court's advisory opinion 'when deciding on bills reserved by the Governor' is fraught and open to interrogation for judicial overreach. This is because the President's prerogatives were not directly in question before the Court and because the President's sovereign power operates in a different realm and on a different plane in our constitutional scheme. As the repository of the highest sovereign power, the President is entitled to the fullest presumption of regularity in the performance of constitutional duties, unaffected by the assumed possibility of an irregular exercise of power. Inspired by national imperatives generally not amenable to judicially manageable standards, the nature of the President's functions place the head of state in a unique position that does not warrant equivalence with the Governor, who holds office at the pleasure of the President as her representative in the state. It is not surprising, therefore, that in a clear disapproval of the Court's judgment, the President has sought the Court's advisory opinion on the key constitutional issues that emanate from its decision. The core question raised in the Reference concerns the 'constitutional boundaries of executive and judicial authority', which are fundamental to the republic's constitutional arrangement. Pertinently, because the Court's advisory opinion cannot displace a binding judicial precedent, the Reference is seen as an opening for a review of the judgment or justification for a possible legislative initiative to insulate the President from the restraints imposed by the Court, should the advisory opinion be at variance with the ratio and reasoning in the Tamil Nadu case in so far as it relates to the President. The Reference also seeks the Court's view on several specific and substantial questions of public importance. These include whether '… the judiciary can modify or override constitutional powers exercised by the President or Governor through Article 142', which confers upon the Supreme Court judicial power of the widest amplitude. Despite its internal coherence and unimpeachable logic in relation to the conduct of the Governor, the Court's decision can be questioned for its directions (cloaked as a suggestion) to the President to seek its advice under Article 143 on legal issues impinging on the legality of bills requiring presidential assent. This has been critiqued, not unreasonably, as an unwarranted judicial intervention in the exercise of sovereign discretion, not necessitated by the scope of the legal challenge that was limited to the conduct of the Governor of Tamil Nadu. This part of the judgment can also be faulted in view of the established processes of decision-making by the President, including those pertaining to legal counsel. Judicial intervention in policy choices of the government/Parliament and in the exercise of sovereign power, unless palpably malafide, has raised questions about the balance of constitutional power. The necessity of restraint in the exercise of judicial power has been reiterated by the Court in the Tamil Nadu case itself, holding that [in] 'the exercise of self-imposed restraint… courts do not venture into areas of governance in which the Constitution gives a prerogative solely to the executive.' Chief Justice B R Gavai, in his recent address at the Oxford Union, is reported to have endorsed a balanced exercise of judicial power. Judges, made wise by experience, disciplined by law and elevated by knowledge, are expected to weigh and balance competing values, a function central to their role. The nation trusts the sagacity of the highest court to configure a just constitutional equilibrium of power so that the country's democratic order is not held hostage to the unfettered impulses of any single branch of the Indian state. As the nation's conscience-keeper, the Court is expected to vindicate this trust by the consistency and moral integrity of its judgments and by guarding against the 'juridification of politics and politicisation of the judiciary'. We know that it is in the wisdom of the wise that enduring answers to some of the vexed questions of our time will be found. The writer is senior advocate, Supreme Court and former Union Minister for Law and Justice. Views are personal
