Jagdeep Dhankhar resigns: What is Article 67(a) the Vice President mentioned in resignation letter to President?
'To prioritise health care and abide by medical advice, I hereby resign as the Vice President of India, effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution,' reads Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation letter.
Article 67(a) of the Indian constitution allows the Vice President to resign voluntarily before the end of their five-year term by submitting a written resignation to the President.
The article in question states that 'a Vice-President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.'
Jagdeep Dhankhar had assumed the role of the Vice President in August 2022. As per the official term of five years, his tenure would have come to end in 2027.
Dhankhar, however, by invoking Article 67(a), tendered his resignation two years before the end of tenure.
Jagdeep Dhankhar, in his resignation letter, expressed gratitude to President Droupadi Murmu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the Union Cabinet of Ministers. He also said he felt proud to have been a part of India's development as an economic power and as a global entity.
Dhankhar's resignation comes hours after he presided over the first sitting of Rajya Sabha as chairperson during the Monsoon Session of Parliament that began on July 21.
Rajya Saba MP Kapil Sibal said he was 'saddened' by Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation, and recounted his experience of working with the Vice President.
Sibal said he knew Jagdeep Dhankhar for 30-40 years, and described his personal rapport with the VP as warm and respectful, marked by legal camaraderie and shared moments at family events. Despite differing political views, Sibal said they maintained mutual respect, and Dhankhar often accommodated him generously in parliamentary proceedings. He wished Dhankhar good health and a long life.
'We may have had differences, in respect to our political views, or on opinions, but at a personal level, we had a very strong bond. Whenever I needed time to speak in the House, I met him personally in his chamber, and he never refused me, and gave me a little more time than is otherwise available to independent members of Parliament,' said Kapil Sibal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Jagdeep Dhankhar accepting Opposition notice to impeach Justice Varma rubbed Govt ‘wrong way'
With no word from the government on the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar, barring an acknowledgement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday noon, what precipitated his sudden move is being attributed to two signature-collection drives to move a motion to impeach Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma for the alleged cash found in his premises. The first of these was by the Opposition which started two weeks ago but picked up momentum Sunday, to collect at least 50 signatures – the minimum needed to move a motion in the Rajya Sabha – to initiate the removal of Justice Varma. The government saw this as a move by the Opposition to undercut its own motion in this regard in the Lok Sabha, for which it had collected 145 signatures – the minimum for Lok Sabha is 100 – including those of the Opposition. Incidentally, in the run-up to the monsoon session, the Government had made it clear that it would move a motion to impeach the judge. The Modi government hoped that the removal of Justice Varma then would be by 'consensus' and not seen as partisan. (The motion to remove a judge can be initiated in either House.) An Opposition MP told The Indian Express that they were, however, determined to keep NDA members out of their Rajya Sabha initiative, to ensure that the ruling coalition didn't walk away with the anti-corruption plank on the matter. 'We did not want the government to have the moral high ground on the issue,' the MP said. Opposition sources said another reason was that they also wanted to raise the issue of Justice Shekhar Yadav, whose removal has been sought for controversial remarks at a VHP event, along with that of Justice Varma. As Monday morning came, and the Monsoon Session began, the Opposition was still trying to muster enough signatures to give a notice for the removal of Justice Varma. Around 1 pm, Dhankhar held a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) to decide the time and nature of discussions to be held in the Rajya Sabha. The meeting was inconclusive, with the Opposition seeking more time to decide on the government's suggestions. Dhankhar then said that another BAC meeting would be held later in the day, at 4.30 pm. By 3 pm, the Opposition submitted its notice for removal of Justice Varma to Dhankhar. At 3.12 pm, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh tweeted: 'Today 63 Rajya Sabha MPs belonging to various Opposition parties submitted a notice of motion to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. A similar motion for the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav had been submitted to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, way back on Dec 13, 2024.' According to sources, the government was not too happy about Dhankhar accepting the motion, upstaging its own initiative in the Rajya Sabha. A frantic exercise began allegedly then to rustle up signatures of NDA MPs. There was confusion about the purpose of the move. Several BJP MPs told The Indian Express that the signatures were taken for 'impeachment' of Justice Varma. However, two of their counterparts from the NDA underlined that they had signed on 'blank papers', suggesting that the intention was not clear. Three Cabinet members told The Indian Express that the signatures were meant for a notice against Justice Varma. A minister added that the proceedings, however, 'will be in the Lok Sabha only'. 'But since the Chair (Dhankhar) has taken up the matter in the Rajya Sabha also, the presiding officers of both will form a three-member committee to probe the matter.' Shortly after the Opposition submitted its notice, Dhankhar came to the Rajya Sabha and announced around 4.05 pm Monday that he had received it. 'A notice of motion under Article 271 (1) (b), read with Article 218 and Article 124, sub article 4 of the Constitution of India, along with Section 3 (1B) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to constitute a statutory committee for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad' had been submitted, the Vice President said. Dhankhar added that according to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of a motion are submitted on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, a committee to examine the charges is to be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman together. Incidentally, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is yet to inform the House about the Justice Varma notice. So this move from Dhankhar, sources in the BJP said, was 'unexpected, shocking and confusing'. A top source in the government said: 'He did not even wait for our notice on the matter.' Interestingly, Dhankhar went on to also refer to the Opposition notice on removal of Justice Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. Without mentioning Justice Yadav by name, Dhankhar said that the confusion over the signatures in the notice submitted by the Opposition was the reason for the hold-up in the process, initiated in December. He added that he would get back to the House once the probe in the case was completed. This did not go down well with the government either, which has been trying to go easy on the Justice Yadav matter. Dhankhar then mentioned the case of the discovery of a wad of notes in the Rajya Sabha in February last year, allegedly from a seat belonging to MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Calling it a serious matter, Dhankhar said the matter would have to be dealt with, and that the floor leaders would have to help him in this. Around half-an-hour later, Dhankhar started the BAC meeting he had announced earlier in the day. But even as the Opposition came for it, no one from the government side – either J P Nadda, the Leader of the House, or Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and MoS, Parliamentary Affairs, Arjun Ram Meghwal – turned up. On Tuesday, speaking to journalists at Parliament House, Nadda said Rijiju and he had informed Dhankhar in advance that they would not be able to attend the meeting as they had another engagement. A source from the government said: 'After we informed the Chairman that the ministers would not be able to be present, he said he would wait for some time and carry on with the meeting.' Nadda also gave a clarification regarding his remarks 'Nothing will go on record, only what I say will go on record' in the Rajya Sabha on Monday, saying these were directed at the 'interrupting' Opposition MPs and not the Chair. After Dhankhar's resignation, the Congress had cited this 'insult' to the Vice President as one of the reasons behind his sudden move. On Tuesday, Congress leader Ramesh speculated in a post on X that 'something very serious' occurred between 1 pm and 4.30 pm, which prompted Nadda and Rijiju to skip the BAC 'deliberately', and said Dhankhar had taken 'umbrage' at this. Six hours after government representatives did not turn up for the BAC meeting, at 9.25 pm Monday, Dhankar posted his resignation letter addressed to President Droupadi Murmu on the official X handle of the Vice President, saying he was stepping down due to medical reasons. The first official reaction from the BJP or the government was at 12.13 pm Tuesday, when PM Modi tweeted: 'Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar Ji has got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities, including as the Vice President of India. Wishing him good health.'
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sports Governance Bill to be tabled in the Parliament on Wednesday
In an attempt to empower Indian sports, and to drive it towards a sparkling presence in the global arena, the Union Government has carefully drafted the Sports Governance Bill, relinquishing its previously perceived status as a 'controller' and accepting the role of a 'facilitator'. The Bill, scheduled to be tabled in the Parliament on Wednesday, will try to lighten the load on the beleaguered judiciary by having a Sports Tribunal, headed by a Supreme Court judge, for speedy redressal of disputes. Many National Sports Federations are caught in legal tussles that have been dragging for years, harming the growth of the sport. The Union Sports Ministry itself is supposed to be dealing with more than 300 legal cases. After the judgment of the Sports Tribunal, as and when it is established, the matter can only be taken up with the Supreme Court. Even though the Bill will be athlete-centric, ensuring the presence of athletes in administration, it will encourage competent administrators, allowing the National Sports Federations to align with the International Federations and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in terms of age and tenure norms. Overall, the autonomy of the National Sports Federations would be fully respected, while ensuring the execution of fair election, selection, etc. It is a holistic approach by the Government, which has consulted all the stakeholders and has arrived at a system to rid Indian sports of its many problems and help it grow stronger in the international arena, matching its vast potential for excellence. Every sport will come under the Sports Governance Bill without exception, even though the Government is focused on the Olympic medals apart from hosting the Olympics itself.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sports tribunal, athlete centricity among key features in Sports Governance Bill to be tabled in Parliament
In an attempt to empower Indian sports and drive it towards a sparkling presence in the global arena, the Union Government has carefully drafted the Sports Governance Bill, relinquishing its previously perceived status as a 'controller' and accepting the role of a 'facilitator.' The Bill, scheduled to be tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, will try to lighten the load on the beleaguered judiciary by having a Sports Tribunal, headed by a Supreme Court judge, for speedy redressal of disputes. Many National Sports Federations have been caught in legal tussles for years, harming the growth of the sport. The Union Sports Ministry itself is supposed to be dealing with more than 300 legal cases. After the judgment of the sports tribunal, as an when it is established, the matter can only be taken up with the Supreme Court. Even though the Bill will be athlete-centric, ensuring the presence of athletes in administration, it will encourage competent administrators, and will allow the National Sports Federations to align with the International Federations and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in terms of age and tenure norms. ALSO READ | AIU unable to run university sports, drastic revamp needed: Sports Ministry source Overall, the autonomy of the National Sports Federations would be fully respected, while ensuring the execution of fair election, selection etc. In a holistic approach, the government has consulted all the stakeholders and has arrived at a system to rid Indian sports of its many problems and help it grow stronger in the international arena, matching its vast potential for excellence. Every sport will fall under the Sports Governance Bill without exception, even though the government is primarily focused on securing Olympic medals, apart from hosting the Olympics itself.
