Former VP Dhankhar Switched To Non-Bulletproof Innova After MHA Delayed Vehicle Replacement Request
In February 2024, the Vice President's Secretariat formally requested new high-security vehicles from the MHA, citing the deteriorating condition of Dhankhar's three official bulletproof BMW cars. The communication indicated that two vehicles had exceeded six years of service while the third was approaching the five-year replacement threshold within months.
The February 28 letter from the VP's deputy secretary to the Additional Secretary of Police Modernisation Division emphasized the urgent need for vehicle replacement, requesting immediate initiation of the procurement process for three new bulletproof high-security automobiles to ensure continued protection during daily movements.
Following initial confusion about procurement authority, with the VP's office first approaching Delhi Police's security division before being redirected to the MHA, the ministry responded in June 2024. An under-secretary informed the Vice President's Secretariat about forming an inspection board comprising six officers, including specialists from the National Security Guard and Central Reserve Police Force with technical expertise in bulletproof vehicle systems.
However, by November 2024, the VP's office made an independent decision to replace the aging bulletproof vehicles with standard commercial models. Internal Delhi Police communications revealed that the secretariat had switched to an Innova as the primary vehicle and a Fortuner as backup, neither equipped with bulletproof protection, after determining the BMW fleet had exceeded its five-year operational lifespan.
Despite the VP receiving Z-plus security coverage from Delhi Police, his office declined offers to obtain bulletproof vehicles from the police department when informed about the security limitations of the new fleet. The Officer on Special Duty and Secretary were specifically notified that the replacement vehicles lacked bulletproof capabilities, with alternative arrangements available upon request.
This vehicle situation remained unchanged until Dhankhar's resignation announcement on July 22, when he stepped down from the Vice Presidential position citing health concerns. Queries sent to relevant authorities including the VP's Secretariat, MHA spokesperson, and Delhi Police officials did not receive responses regarding the delayed procurement process or security implications.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Deported after Pahalgam attack, Pakistani woman to get visitor's visa: MHA tells J&K HC
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family here. The court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any manner. Rashid (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to Rashid. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term visa. The court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest". The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and operate. On July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns. In response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor general. On June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" Rashid. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, 'This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out.' Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April 29. She approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to Pakistan. Rashid, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu. She continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national. "It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order noted. Her husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. 'We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her),' he said.
NDTV
6 hours ago
- NDTV
Home Ministry Allows Visitor Visa For Pakistani Woman Deported After Pahalgam Attack
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family here. The court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any manner. Rashid (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to Rashid. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term visa. The court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest." The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and operate. On July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns. In response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor general. On June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" Rashid. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, "This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out." Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April 29. She approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to Pakistan. Rashid, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu. She continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national. "It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order noted. Her husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. "We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her)," he said.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
BJP Power Struggles: Modi-Shah Versus RSS
Published : Aug 02, 2025 16:00 IST - 6 MINS READ It is ironic that while the constitutional office of the Vice President has been vacated two years before Jagdeep Dhankhar's term was to end, the BJP had extended its national president's term by two years. J.P. Nadda, appointed in January 2020 for a three-year term as per the party's constitution, has now held the post for over five years. The contrast between the premature exit from one post and the extended tenure in the other drives home the same point: the BJP is run by two strongmen—Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah—who brook no dissent. It is this my-way-or-the-highway style that has led to the former Vice President's banishment. It remains to be seen if Dhankhar will straighten the spine that he often bent in submission to Modi and reveal the real reason behind his resignation, especially since he did appear to show a fleeting moment of independent thought and action. Dhankhar veered away from the Shah-Modi-BJP script by meeting too many opposition leaders at his official bungalow and accepting an opposition-backed motion in the Upper House. The message that has filtered down the ranks of the party and government is clear: obey and be grateful. This comes against the backdrop of the BJP's reduced strength in Parliament after the 2024 national election, where Modi's party lost 63 seats and shifted from single-party rule to coalition governance. Therefore, a Vice President going along with any opposition strategy, however unimportant, was viewed as too risky. Therefore, only an obedient loyalist is likely to be put forward as the next Vice President. The very idea of the trusted insider from the BJP-RSS combine gets more complicated when it comes to settling on the party president. For a party known for clockwork precision, it is noteworthy that the dates given to the media for completing the process of selecting a new party president have not been met. It is now being said that a new BJP president will be at the helm by August 15, so let us see. But it is important to understand that such a delay can happen only due to friction between the Modi-Shah leadership and the RSS, which might be resisting a rubber stamp appointment. Also Read | Is Modi past his best? While Modi and Shah may have some candidates in mind, names such as Bhupender Yadav and Dharmendra Pradhan, both Union Ministers and efficient party workers, are doing the rounds. They are loyal and trained in the Modi era of centralised command and control. The RSS had ceded some operational control between 2014 and 2024, but in the past year that has changed. It believes that the party can project Modi's face but cannot win elections without the RSS' feet on the ground. That is why the Sangh is taking its time on the likely candidates. The 2024 Lok Sabha election reinforced the Sangh's centrality to 'Project BJP'; some of the party's losses in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra were widely attributed to the RSS cadres' lack of engagement. There were complex reasons, such as the hyped projections of the BJP, the belief that New Delhi controlled everything, and the 'Modi hai to mumkin hai'(Anything is possible if Modi is there) slogan. But since the BJP is the RSS and the RSS is the BJP, the parent organisation does not really want its child to be defeated; it just does not want it to get too big for its boots. Therefore, the Sangh went all out in the State Assembly elections that followed, first in Haryana, which the party narrowly retained, then most spectacularly in Maharashtra, where the RSS is headquartered. The structural aspects of the election—from voter lists to booth management—were handled almost entirely by the RSS cadre. It was not digital war rooms or political strategists that won the day for the BJP but old-fashioned boots-on-the-ground work: meticulous screening of voter rolls, attempts to suppress opposition turnout, and efforts to maximise the presence of BJP supporters at polling booths. That is precisely how the cadre is preparing for the upcoming Assembly election in Bihar as well. The other straw in the wind is the suggestion made by no less than RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat at a book launch event that people should step aside at the age of 75. Modi turns 75 in September, and although he is certainly not going to step aside, he is growing older and has faced electoral reverses besides diplomatic, security, and foreign policy setbacks. The RSS believes it has every right to think of a successor. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, 53, and Amit Shah, 60, usually figure when the topic comes up. Interestingly, Adityanath does not seem to be pushing himself in that direction in recent months, making news recently only for the Kanwar Yatra. He is playing himself: the head of a religious order at Gorakhpur and founder of the vigilante-style Hindu Yuva Vahini. Amit Shah would be the Prime Minister's preferred successor, but he is not the RSS' choice. First, Shah is from Gujarat like Modi, and the RSS is against successive leaders from the same State. But the real reason could be that Shah is seen as too transactional, controlling, and lacking the moral authority the Sangh believes it bestows. The story here takes a piquant turn when we examine individuals who have not fared well in the Modi-Shah era but have the blessings of the Sangh. Take the trusted organisation man Sanjay Joshi, whom Modi loathed in his years as Gujarat Chief Minister but the Sangh never lost faith in; it seeks an organisational role for him but not the president's post. The RSS has also always backed Nitin Gadkari, the MP from Nagpur, the Sangh's headquarters. Also Read | The RSS sends a message The other elephant in the room is Shivraj Singh Chouhan, 66, the Union Agriculture Minister who, like Modi, is an OBC member of the RSS. He was also the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh from 2005 to 2018 and again from 2020 to 2023. Although the BJP last won the State under his leadership, Chouhan was removed as Chief Minister and moved to Delhi. He has proved his mettle in mass politics but is not the kind of individual who would seek to create a party in his image. The Sangh likes him, but he is exactly the kind of appointment Modi-Shah would seek to block. Since its founding in 1980, the BJP's journey to power has been shaped by its party presidents, most notably its first president, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and L.K. Advani. Others who held that office were either those who also dabbled in electoral politics, such as Murli Manohar Joshi, Rajnath Singh, and Nitin Gadkari, or RSS full-timers such as Kushabhau Thakre and Jana Krishnamoorthy. With Modi shifting to Delhi, Amit Shah became president for six years, or two terms, followed by J.P. Nadda, whose main qualification is his loyalty to Modi and Shah. What the RSS currently desires is a decentralisation of control away from these two individuals. While it is crucial to understand these underlying factors, it is too early to speculate on specific individuals when decisions are ultimately made by a 'brotherhood in saffron' and a 'power pair' in Delhi. Saba Naqvi is a Delhi-based journalist and author of four books who writes on politics and identity issues.
