I. Executive Summary
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s abrupt resignation on July 21, 2025, officially citing “health reasons,” has triggered extensive political speculation across India. This report demonstrates that the exit was likely a culmination of escalating tensions between Dhankhar’s assertive, independent style as Rajya Sabha Chairman and the central government’s expectations, particularly highlighted by his handling of the Justice Yashwant Varma impeachment motion. The timing, the terse official reactions, and immediate political maneuvers, including the surfacing of Nitish Kumar’s name for the Vice President post, strongly indicate a strategically driven exit rather than a purely health-motivated one.
The analysis reveals a complex interplay of pre-existing political frictions, internal power dynamics within the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Dhankhar’s potential future ambitions, and calculated strategic objectives. This event carries significant implications for the independence of constitutional offices, the delicate balance of separation of powers, and sets a notable precedent in Indian political history, underscoring the instrumentalization of high offices for political ends.
II. Introduction: The Unforeseen Departure
Jagdeep Dhankhar, a seasoned lawyer and former Governor of West Bengal, assumed the office of Vice President and ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in August 2022. His tenure, though relatively brief, was marked by a distinctly assertive style and frequent, often confrontational, exchanges with the Opposition. This approach was not new to Dhankhar; his prior role as West Bengal Governor also saw a famously combative relationship with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, characterized by frequent criticism of the state government and allegations of sitting on crucial legislation. This history clearly indicated a pre-existing inclination towards a confrontational approach in constitutional roles, setting the stage for his eventful Vice Presidency.
The sudden nature of his resignation on July 21, 2025, with two years remaining in his five-year term, was highly unexpected and sent ripples across the political landscape. The timing, on the very first day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session, just hours after he presided over the Rajya Sabha and admitted a motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, fueled immediate skepticism and intense speculation. Reports from various media outlets confirmed that Dhankhar had chaired a Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting at 12:30 PM and had spoken to Members of Parliament (MPs) and floor leaders until late evening, giving “no indication of quitting”. His unannounced visit to Rashtrapati Bhavan at 9 PM to submit his resignation, catching even President Murmu’s office by surprise, further deepened the mystery surrounding his abrupt exit.
Officially, Dhankhar’s resignation letter to President Droupadi Murmu cited “health reasons” and the need “to prioritise health care and abide by medical advice,” effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution. He also expressed gratitude to the President, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the Council of Ministers for their support and cooperation during his tenure. However, the Opposition, notably Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, immediately questioned the sincerity of the health rationale, calling the resignation “inexplicable” and suggesting “something very serious” must have transpired between 1 PM and 4:30 PM on the day of his exit. This immediate and widespread skepticism set the tone for a deeper investigation into the underlying political currents.
III. Unveiling Pre-existing Frictions & Disagreements
Jagdeep Dhankhar’s tenure as Vice President was characterized by a consistent and assertive stance on parliamentary supremacy and a vocal critique of perceived judicial overreach. Early in his term, he publicly challenged the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to nullify the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, calling it a “glaring compromise” of the legislature’s authority. He viewed himself not merely as a presiding officer but as a “foot soldier” of the judiciary, albeit one staunchly committed to defending the system against what he perceived as its excesses. This commitment extended to his strong criticism of the judiciary for attempting to set timelines for the President’s decisions on bills, asserting that the Supreme Court cannot act as a “super Parliament” or “fire a nuclear missile” at democratic forces. He also expressed disappointment that Members of Parliament did not vocally oppose the Supreme Court’s striking down of the NJAC Act, lamenting that there was “no whisper” in Parliament on what he considered “too serious an issue”.
The discovery of cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence in March 2025 provided Dhankhar with a renewed opportunity to target the higher judiciary on issues of corruption and accountability. He publicly questioned the absence of an FIR in the case and deemed the internal investigative committee formed by the then Chief Justice of India as unconstitutional, arguing its findings lacked proper investigative tools. This episode became a critical flashpoint, culminating in his final official act: the admission of an Opposition-backed motion for Justice Varma’s removal in the Rajya Sabha. This unprecedented move, which would have given him equal authority as the Lok Sabha Speaker in selecting members for the judicial inquiry panel, reportedly “caught the government off-guard” and was perceived as a significant “provocation”.
Beyond judicial matters, Dhankhar’s ideological leanings and controversial statements further shaped his relationship with both the government and the opposition. He ignited debate by describing the inclusion of “socialist” and “secular” in the Constitution’s Preamble during the Emergency era as a “festering wound” and a “distortion of original intent”. He also openly defended the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), praising it as a “global intellectual force” with a constitutional right to shape public life, thereby aligning himself closely with the ruling party’s ideological worldview. Furthermore, he made veiled accusations against certain constitutional figures, implying they were acting as “enemies of the nation,” remarks widely interpreted as targeting Opposition figures critical of the government abroad, which further deepened partisan divides.
Dhankhar’s interactions with the Opposition were frequently strained, leading to direct clashes. His firm refusal to compel Prime Minister Modi to attend the Rajya Sabha debate on the Manipur violence, asserting it was the PM’s prerogative, led to significant friction. His tenure also included the unprecedented suspension of 146 Opposition lawmakers in the Winter Session of 2023, the largest in Indian legislative history, for demanding a discussion on parliamentary security, which significantly widened the chasm between him and the Opposition. In December 2024, Dhankhar faced a no-confidence motion filed by the Opposition, accusing him of partisanship and acting as a “government spokesperson”. Though this motion did not advance, it underscored the deep polarization of his term. Ironically, in the hours leading up to his resignation, his “unusual generosity” towards Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and his decision to admit the Opposition-sponsored Justice Varma motion were perceived by the government as “meddling” and an “indulgence” of the Opposition, sparking “suspicion about his intent”.
This dynamic suggests a fundamental tension in India’s constitutional framework, where a strong, independent voice from a constitutional office, while constitutionally desirable, can become a liability for the ruling party if it deviates from their immediate strategic interests. The executive appeared to value Dhankhar’s assertive anti-judiciary rhetoric when it aligned with their narrative but not his independent procedural actions that could empower the Opposition or complicate the government’s own strategy. This indicates a preference for “controlled” assertiveness rather than genuine institutional independence from the executive.
The initial frictions involving Dhankhar were largely ideological, expressed through public statements on the Preamble, RSS, and general judicial criticism. These statements often reinforced the BJP’s ideological positions. However, the conflict escalated significantly when Dhankhar’s actions became operational, directly impacting parliamentary proceedings and government strategy, particularly with the Justice Varma motion. The government’s “annoyance” reportedly turned into “anger and suspicion” when he admitted the Opposition’s notice, potentially giving him a say in the inquiry panel. This shift from ideological alignment to operational friction appears to be the critical turning point that led to his resignation. This indicates that the ruling party is willing to tolerate strong ideological posturing from constitutional functionaries as long as it serves their narrative and does not disrupt their operational control. However, decisive action is taken when such functionaries exercise their procedural powers in a way that undermines the party’s immediate political control or strategic objectives. This reveals the practical limits of “independence” within the current political climate, emphasizing that operational autonomy is less tolerated than ideological alignment.
IV. Strategic Political Repositioning & Future Ambitions for Dhankhar
The abruptness of Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation, with two years remaining in his term, strongly suggests it was not a pre-planned retirement but a reaction to immediate, unforeseen circumstances. While his brother-in-law, Praveen Balwada, cited health reasons and family wishes, he also asserted that Dhankhar “never took pressure of any kind” throughout his career. This statement, however, stands in contradiction to the widespread perception of political pressure, suggesting a deliberate effort at narrative management.
The resignation immediately fueled speculation regarding Dhankhar’s future political role. He is only the third Vice President in India’s history to resign before completing his term. Both his predecessors, V.V. Giri and R. Venkataraman, resigned specifically to contest the Presidential election. This historical precedent immediately fueled speculation about a Presidential bid for Dhankhar, even though some sources note his case is “different” as there’s “no such political ladder in sight”. The next Presidential election is due in 2027, making this a plausible long-term aspiration. An old video also surfaced where Dhankhar, on July 10, 2025, just days before his unexpected resignation, stated he would “retire at the right time, August 2027, subject to divine intervention”. This comment, in retrospect, adds to the intrigue and can be interpreted as a cryptic reference to unforeseen political forces that compelled his early exit. Furthermore, some political circles speculate that Dhankhar is “not going to quietly fade away” and may “launch himself in a different version: as a farm leader”. This aligns with his previous public statements advocating for farmers.
The timing of the resignation, occurring on the first day of the Monsoon Session, a period of heightened political activity and scrutiny, is also noteworthy. This period often coincides with leadership reshuffles and strategic political calculations. The Bihar Assembly elections are tentatively scheduled for October/November 2025 , making the timing relevant for potential strategic moves involving Nitish Kumar, as discussed later in this report. The Vice Presidential election to fill the vacancy will be held on a TBD date in 2025.
The swift acceptance of the resignation and the terse nature of Prime Minister Modi’s message on social media indicate the NDA’s desire to quickly move past the “Dhankhar chapter” and install a “solid choice and non-controversial” successor. This suggests the party prioritizes a compliant or less confrontational figure in the Vice President role, ensuring greater control over the Rajya Sabha. For Dhankhar, the resignation could be a tactical retreat to avoid further marginalization or a strategic repositioning for a more impactful, perhaps less constitutionally constrained, role. The “divine intervention” comment, in retrospect, might be seen as a veiled acknowledgment of external pressures or a premonition of an unavoidable political shift.
Dhankhar’s statement about retiring in August 2027 “subject to divine intervention” , followed by his sudden resignation in July 2025, strongly suggests that “divine intervention” was not a literal act of God but a euphemism for unforeseen, powerful political developments or pressures that compelled his departure earlier than anticipated. The timing, coinciding precisely with the peak of the Justice Varma motion controversy and government displeasure, provides a strong causal link. This suggests a recurring pattern in Indian high-level politics where exits, even when cloaked in personal or pre-ordained reasons, are often the direct outcomes of intense political maneuvering and power struggles behind the scenes. It underscores the lack of transparency in elite political decisions and the use of coded language to manage public perception and maintain a façade of order.
While Dhankhar’s brother-in-law claimed no political pressure , the overwhelming evidence of government displeasure, including the terse Prime Minister’s message and ministerial no-shows, points to a forced exit. Therefore, his resignation is not necessarily a strategic advancement but rather a recalibration forced by an untenable position. The speculation about a Presidential bid might be a narrative spun to provide a dignified exit, or a genuine aspiration that was accelerated by the current crisis, rather than being the primary driver of the resignation itself. The historical precedent of Vice Presidents resigning for Presidential bids provides a convenient, yet potentially misleading, parallel. This highlights the precariousness of constitutional offices when their occupants are perceived to be acting outside the ruling party’s immediate strategic interests. It suggests that even high-ranking officials may be compelled to make choices that appear tactical but are, in reality, responses to significant, often unstated, political pressure, thus impacting the perceived autonomy of such offices.
V. Internal Power Dynamics and Pressure within the NDA/BJP
The government’s “disappointment” and “annoyance” with Dhankhar’s actions, particularly his handling of the Justice Varma impeachment motion, were clearly evident in the immediate aftermath of his resignation. Prime Minister Modi’s “starkly terse” message on X (formerly Twitter) following the resignation, which notably refrained from commenting on Dhankhar’s functioning as Rajya Sabha Chairman, was widely interpreted as confirmation of government displeasure. The “sheer silence” from senior cabinet colleagues on their X handles further underscored this sentiment, indicating a collective, deliberate omission of traditional courtesies.
Dhankhar’s perceived independence and confrontational approach increasingly put him at odds with the central leadership. His “unusual generosity” towards Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, allowing him to speak ahead of the Leader of the House (J.P. Nadda), and Kharge’s subsequent sharp attack on the government, significantly irritated the treasury benches. This was seen as a breach of convention and a direct challenge to the government’s control over parliamentary proceedings. The “smouldering annoyance” within the government escalated into “anger and, crucially, sparked suspicion about his intent” after Dhankhar admitted the Opposition’s motion for Justice Varma’s removal. This was seen as “meddling” by the government, especially as it could give Dhankhar a say in the inquiry panel, potentially undermining the government’s desired “consensus” approach to action against Justice Varma. The government was already “upset with him over the barbs he would routinely train at the judiciary, as well as the perception that they were officially sponsored”.
Several key moments highlight the mounting pressure on Dhankhar. Union Ministers J.P. Nadda and Kiren Rijiju skipping the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting convened by Dhankhar was a clear signal of displeasure. While Nadda later claimed the Vice President’s office was informed of their inability to attend , Congress leader Jairam Ramesh highlighted it as a significant event between 1 PM and 4:30 PM on the day of resignation, suggesting “something very serious” transpired during that critical window. Furthermore, amid “deepening suspicions” and “buzz of a ‘secret deal’,” BJP managers “scrambled to get the NDA contingent to sign off on a similar notice” for Justice Varma’s removal in the Lok Sabha. This was a direct counter to Dhankhar’s move and a show of force, demonstrating the party’s capacity to bypass or override his actions. The culmination of these events was succinctly captured by the statement, “The message for Dhankhar was clear and he lost little time in heeding it. Just hours later, he rushed to the Rashtrapati Bhavan to submit his resignation on ‘health’ grounds”. This phrasing strongly implies a forced exit due to explicit or implicit pressure from within the ruling establishment.
Opposition leaders, including Congress’s Ashok Gehlot, Imran Pratapgarhi, and Karti Chidambaram, openly termed his exit a “forced resignation” and “inexplicable,” suggesting “far more to it than meets the eye”. They questioned why a “stubborn” person like Dhankhar, known for attending Parliament even when sick, would suddenly resign citing health reasons. Chidambaram notably likened it to “Soviet style resignations when, in those days, high-ranking officials were asked to go citing medical reasons,” demanding greater transparency in India’s open democracy.
The Justice Varma motion, while an immediate trigger for government “anger and suspicion” , was built upon pre-existing “smouldering annoyance” over Dhankhar’s routine barbs at the judiciary and the perception that these were “officially sponsored”. The Varma motion likely served as the breaking point because it directly impacted the government’s control over a sensitive judicial matter and potentially empowered the opposition by giving Dhankhar a say in the inquiry panel. This indicates that the government’s tolerance for Dhankhar’s assertive style had a clear limit when it impacted their operational control. This suggests that the ruling party has a low tolerance for perceived insubordination or independent action from constitutional functionaries, especially when it concerns sensitive areas like the judiciary. It indicates a preference for strict adherence to the party line, even within constitutionally independent roles, highlighting a subtle but powerful mechanism of control exerted by the executive.
The “starkly terse” Prime Minister Modi message and the “sheer silence” from senior cabinet colleagues , combined with the skipping of the BAC meeting by key ministers , are not accidental. This collective reticence and deliberate omission of traditional courtesies constitute a sophisticated, albeit opaque, strategy of conveying profound displeasure and exerting pressure without explicit public confrontation. This “cold shoulder” was a clear, undeniable signal for Dhankhar to act, demonstrating that non-verbal cues can be more powerful than direct commands in high-stakes political environments. This reveals a deeply ingrained and effective method of exerting political pressure on high-ranking officials in India. It suggests that formal declarations and public statements are often less indicative of true political dynamics than subtle cues, omissions, and strategic silences, thus maintaining the appearance of constitutional propriety while achieving political objectives.
Table 1: Key Instances of Government/Party Displeasure with VP Dhankhar
| Date/Period | Event/Dhankhar’s Action | Government/Party Reaction/Perception | Supporting Information |
| Winter Session 2022 | Public criticism of Supreme Court’s NJAC verdict and Article 142. | Seen as unusually provocative for a VP; initially aligned with government’s anti-Collegium stance. | |
| Throughout Tenure | Routine “barbs” at the judiciary and perceived “officially sponsored” criticism. | Growing “annoyance” within government; seen as meddling. | |
| July 21, 2025 (Morning) | Allows LoP Mallikarjun Kharge to speak at length ahead of Leader of the House; Kharge launches sharp attack. | Significant irritation on treasury benches; perceived as “unusual generosity” towards Opposition. | |
| July 21, 2025 (Post-lunch) | Admits Opposition’s notice for Justice Yashwant Varma’s removal; directs examination of its standing. | “Anger and suspicion” about Dhankhar’s intent; seen as “meddling” and potentially undermining government’s strategy. | |
| July 21, 2025 (Evening) | Union Ministers J.P. Nadda and Kiren Rijiju skip Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting convened by Dhankhar. | Clear signal of displeasure and pressure; perceived as a deliberate absence. | |
| July 21, 2025 (Late Evening) | BJP managers “scramble” to get NDA MPs to sign a similar notice for Justice Varma’s removal in Lok Sabha. | Direct counter-move and show of force, indicating the “message for Dhankhar was clear.” | |
| Post-Resignation | Prime Minister Modi’s “starkly terse” message on X; senior cabinet colleagues’ “sheer silence.” | Confirmation of government displeasure; lack of traditional effusive praise. |
VI. Speculation on Vice Presidential Successors and Strategic Implications
A. Nitish Kumar’s Potential Candidacy
Immediately following Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation, speculation quickly emerged regarding Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s potential candidacy for the Vice President’s role. A firebrand BJP MLA, Haribhushan Thakur ‘Bachol’, publicly pitched Nitish Kumar’s name for the Vice President’s post, stating it would be “auspicious for Bihar”. Other Bihar BJP leaders echoed this sentiment, calling him a “suitable and worthy candidate” with a “long administrative record”.
The political and strategic motivations behind such a move for Prime Minister Modi and the BJP are significant, particularly in the context of influencing Bihar’s political landscape. The speculation arises amidst an alliance between the BJP and Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) for the poll-bound Bihar state assembly elections, tentatively scheduled for October/November 2025. A move to Delhi for Nitish Kumar could potentially clear the path for a BJP Chief Minister in Bihar, a long-standing aspiration for the party, without an overt political confrontation. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav explicitly alleged that Dhankhar’s resignation was part of a “BJP conspiracy to sideline Nitish Kumar” and “shunt Nitish Kumar to the politically insignificant post of Vice President” ahead of the upcoming assembly elections. This aligns with past speculation that the BJP might not continue him as Chief Minister if they win the 2025 assembly election, despite Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statements that the election would be fought under Nitish’s leadership. The RJD also cited a claim that Nitish Kumar had previously lobbied for the Vice President post and quit the NDA in 2022 when his ambition was not accommodated.
Nitish Kumar’s party, JD(U), sharply dismissed the speculation as “unnecessary” and “concocted”. JD(U) national spokesperson Rajeev Ranjan Prasad asserted that Nitish Kumar has already been declared the NDA leader in Bihar and is committed to serving as Chief Minister for another five years, aiming for “225 (seats) in 2025, Phir Se Nitish”. They emphasized that such decisions are made by the central leadership of the BJP and NDA, not individual MLAs, dismissing the BJP MLA’s comments as personal opinions.
The speculation highlights underlying tensions within the NDA in Bihar, particularly regarding the Chief Ministerial face for the 2025 elections. It underscores the BJP’s desire for greater control in the state. If Nitish were to accept the Vice President post, it could stabilize the alliance in the short term by removing a potential point of contention for the Chief Minister post, but it also risks alienating his core support base if perceived as a demotion or a forced exit from state politics. The BJP’s strategic objective would be to consolidate its position in Bihar, potentially installing its own Chief Minister while still leveraging Nitish’s political capital at the national level.
The RJD’s explicit claim that the Vice President post is a “politically insignificant” position used to “shunt” Nitish Kumar suggests a cynical, yet plausible, view of the Vice Presidency. If the BJP were to offer it, it would serve as a mechanism to gracefully remove a long-standing, but increasingly less dominant, ally from state leadership while keeping him within the alliance fold. This aligns with historical patterns where constitutional offices are used to manage intra-alliance power dynamics or facilitate leadership transitions. This reveals a recurring pattern in Indian coalition politics where high constitutional offices can be instrumentalized as strategic tools to manage intra-alliance power dynamics, gracefully sideline powerful regional leaders, or facilitate leadership transitions in states without causing overt political friction. It underscores the political utility of seemingly apolitical constitutional positions in maintaining alliance stability and achieving long-term electoral goals.
The precise timing of Dhankhar’s resignation and the immediate, prominent speculation about Nitish Kumar directly coincides with the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections in late 2025. This strong correlation suggests that national-level constitutional appointments are not isolated decisions but can be directly influenced by crucial state-level electoral calculations. Prime Minister Modi’s potential “master stroke” would be to secure Bihar for the BJP by moving Nitish to the center, thereby removing a potential obstacle to the BJP’s full dominance in the state. This demonstrates the deep interconnectedness of national and state politics in India, where even seemingly independent constitutional appointments can become pawns in larger electoral strategies. It highlights the BJP’s long-term ambition to expand its direct control over key states by strategically managing alliance partners and influencing leadership transitions at both state and national levels.
B. Other Potential Contenders: Ram Nath Thakur and Beyond
Beyond Nitish Kumar, other names have emerged in the speculation for the Vice President’s post, reflecting the NDA’s strategic considerations, particularly regarding caste dynamics and regional representation. Among the frontrunners is Ram Nath Thakur, currently the Minister of State for Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. He is the son of former Bihar Chief Minister and Bharat Ratna awardee Karpoori Thakur. Ram Nath Thakur belongs to the Nai (barber) community, which falls under the ‘ati-pichhara’ (extremely backward) category. His potential candidacy is seen as a strategic move to appeal to backward communities, especially with upcoming elections.
Other prominent figures reportedly in the mix for the Vice President’s role include:
- J.P. Nadda, the current BJP president.
- Vasundhara Raje, former Chief Minister of Rajasthan.
- Md. Arif Khan, the Governor of Bihar.
- Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, a former Union minister.
- Harivansh, the current Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman, who is also a Janata Dal (United) MP and is viewed as someone who enjoys the government’s trust.
The NDA holds a comfortable majority of 422 MPs across both Houses, well above the 394 votes required to elect the next Vice President, giving them significant leverage in selecting a candidate. Government sources have indicated a preference for a consensus candidate, with a decision expected after July 26. This broad pool of potential candidates underscores the BJP’s careful consideration of various political factors, including caste, regional balance, and party loyalty, in filling this crucial constitutional office.
VII. Media Framing and Post-Report Speculation (including NDTV)
The media’s framing of Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation underwent a rapid and significant shift. While initial reports from major outlets like NDTV, Times of India, and Economic Times cited “health reasons” as the official explanation , the narrative almost immediately pivoted to one of skepticism and intrigue. Headlines and reports quickly highlighted the “suddenness,” “inexplicable” nature, and the pervasive sense that there was “more than meets the eye” to the resignation. This rapid change in framing was largely driven by the apparent disconnect between Dhankhar’s active public presence just hours before his resignation and the official health narrative. NDTV and other major outlets prominently linked the resignation to the “significant rift” between the government and the Vice President over Justice Yashwant Varma’s impeachment motion, suggesting this event “may have set in motion the chain of events” leading to the resignation.
Several key speculative narratives emerged and were amplified by media coverage. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh repeatedly emphasized that “something very serious” must have transpired between 1 PM and 4:30 PM on the day of resignation, specifically pointing to the unexplained absence of key Union Ministers (J.P. Nadda and Kiren Rijiju) from a crucial Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting chaired by Dhankhar. Opposition leaders, including Congress’s Ashok Gehlot, Imran Pratapgarhi, and Karti Chidambaram, openly alleged “political pressure” and a “forced resignation”. Chidambaram notably likened it to “Soviet style resignations when, in those days, high-ranking officials were asked to go citing medical reasons,” demanding greater transparency in India’s open democracy. NDTV and other sources also speculated that Dhankhar’s resignation “may have spared him a government-backed no-confidence motion,” triggered by his acceptance of the Opposition’s Justice Varma notice, which was seen as undermining the government’s strategy. NDTV’s special reports, such as “Jagdeep Dhankhar Bombshell: Anatomy Of A Shock Resignation” , highlighted the “rare, almost unprecedented” nature of the mid-term resignation. They directly questioned how the “distrust between Mr. Dhankhar and the opposition evolved into distrust between Mr. Dhankhar and the treasury benches,” and posed the central analytical question: “did Jagdeep Dhankhar overplay his hand?”. Finally, the RJD’s claim of a BJP conspiracy to “shunt Nitish Kumar to the politically insignificant post of Vice President” was widely reported, adding another layer of political calculation and strategic intent to the resignation.
This media coverage significantly shaped public opinion and influenced political debate. The media prominently highlighted the dramatic and ironic shift in the Opposition’s stance towards Dhankhar. Critics who had previously moved an impeachment motion against him, accusing him of partisanship and acting as a “government spokesperson,” suddenly transformed into “well-wishers,” praising him as a “kisanputra” (son of a farmer) and urging him to reconsider his decision. This abrupt change itself became a significant subject of media commentary and BJP’s counter-narratives. The widespread media skepticism about the “health reasons,” coupled with the amplification of alternative political theories, likely reinforced public distrust in official explanations for high-profile political events. This encouraged deeper scrutiny and a more critical engagement with government statements. The media’s sustained focus on the “intrigue,” “mystery,” and underlying “political storm” surrounding the resignation kept the issue at the forefront of public discourse. This fueled intense political debate about the independence of constitutional offices, the nature of executive power, and the transparency of governance.
The media’s role went beyond merely reporting the official “health reasons.” They actively shaped the narrative by immediately highlighting inconsistencies, such as Dhankhar’s active presence hours before his resignation , and amplifying speculative theories from opposition and anonymous sources. NDTV’s direct analytical questioning, such as “did Jagdeep Dhankhar overplay his hand?” , is a prime example of active interpretive framing that nudged the public towards a more critical perspective. This proactive stance pushed the discourse beyond superficial explanations. This demonstrates the critical and evolving role of media, particularly major news outlets, in challenging official narratives and driving public discourse beyond superficial explanations in high-stakes political events. It highlights the media’s power to influence the public’s perception of transparency and accountability in governance, especially when official explanations are perceived as inadequate.
The consistent use of “health reasons” for high-profile resignations in Indian politics, despite widespread public skepticism , suggests it serves as a mutually convenient, face-saving mechanism to avoid publicizing internal conflicts or forced exits. The Opposition’s sudden and dramatic shift from seeking Dhankhar’s impeachment to praising him is a clear tactical maneuver. They likely recognized an opportunity to portray Dhankhar as a victim of government pressure, thereby attacking the ruling party, rather than continuing their previous antagonism, which would have been less politically advantageous in the new context. This reveals the performative and highly tactical aspect of political communication in India, where official reasons often mask deeper political realities. It also illustrates the fluid and opportunistic nature of political alliances and antagonisms, where rivals can quickly become sympathetic figures if it serves a larger strategic objective against a common opponent, highlighting the transactional nature of political relationships.
VIII. Deeper Look into Health Factors (Non-Speculative)
While the official explanation for Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation was “health reasons,” a non-speculative assessment of the plausibility and urgency of this rationale requires examining his known medical history and the demanding nature of his office. Dhankhar, aged 74, had a documented medical history, including a “stent implant procedure in March” and persistent issues with “low blood pressure”. He also reportedly “fainted while delivering a speech at Nainital” on June 25, 2025, just weeks before his resignation. His brother-in-law, Praveen Balwada, explicitly stated the decision was “purely by health concerns,” emphasizing Dhankhar’s “workaholic and highly sincere” nature, which made it “difficult to justify both health and work together”.
Despite these reported health issues, Dhankhar appeared “in fine fettle” on the very day of his resignation, actively making “trademark interventions” and chairing the Rajya Sabha proceedings for several hours. This apparent disconnect between his public vigor and the sudden health-based resignation significantly fueled skepticism among observers and the Opposition, who questioned if he was truly in “precarious health”.
The general demands of the Vice President’s office in India are substantial. The Vice President holds the second-highest constitutional position in India and concurrently serves as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. This dual role entails significant responsibilities, including presiding over lengthy parliamentary sessions, maintaining decorum, interpreting House rules, allotting time for debates, nominating members to committees, and facilitating communication with the Lok Sabha. The Vice President also has the contingent executive function of acting as President during vacancies, albeit temporarily. Collectively, these duties demand considerable physical and mental stamina, involving long hours, extensive public appearances, and navigating highly contentious political matters.
When comparing Dhankhar’s resignation to standard expectations for public health disclosures and precedents for health-based resignations in India, a clear pattern emerges. India has a historical tradition where political leaders “guard news of their health as if it were a state secret”. Unlike mandatory financial or criminal record disclosures for politicians, there are no clear, consistent public health disclosure norms for high office holders. Historical examples, such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s tuberculosis or Jawaharlal Nehru’s declining health being kept from public knowledge, illustrate a “primal political instinct” to retain power and avoid any perception of weakness that could invite challenges. While some contemporary politicians like Amit Shah have made public statements about their health, for instance, a COVID-19 diagnosis, these are often reactive responses to rumors rather than proactive, transparent disclosures. Dhankhar is noted as the “first to resign for health reasons” among Vice Presidents , making his case unique compared to V.V. Giri and R. Venkataraman, who resigned specifically to contest Presidential elections. This lack of direct precedent for a health-based Vice Presidential resignation further intensified scrutiny of the official explanation.
While Dhankhar had documented health issues, such as a stent implant and low blood pressure , his active public presence on the very day of his resignation and the immediate political turmoil surrounding the Justice Varma motion suggest that health, while perhaps a contributing factor, was primarily a convenient and publicly acceptable reason to mask a politically forced exit. The prevailing culture of non-transparency in Indian political health disclosures facilitates the use of this pretext, making it difficult to verify the true underlying causes. This reinforces a pattern in Indian politics where “health reasons” serve as a diplomatic and face-saving exit strategy for high-ranking officials facing political pressure or internal disagreements. This practice allows all parties to avoid publicizing sensitive power struggles, but it comes at the cost of public trust and transparency in governance.
IX. Long-term Institutional Consequences for Indian Democracy
The abrupt resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar carries significant long-term institutional consequences for Indian democracy, particularly in how it may alter the perception of the Vice President’s office and its independence. The office of the Vice President is constitutionally mandated to serve as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, a role that demands impartiality and the upholding of parliamentary decorum. However, Dhankhar’s tenure was marked by accusations of partisanship from the Opposition, who even moved an impeachment motion against him, alleging he acted as a “government spokesperson”. The circumstances of his exit, perceived by many as a forced resignation due to a rift with the government over his independent actions, particularly concerning the Justice Varma motion, could further erode the perception of the Vice President’s office as an independent constitutional authority. If high constitutional functionaries are seen to be removed or compelled to resign due to perceived deviations from the ruling party’s line, it fundamentally weakens the institutional autonomy intended by the Constitution.
This episode also has profound implications for the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. Dhankhar’s frequent and strong criticisms of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the NJAC Act and Article 142, positioned him as a vocal advocate for parliamentary supremacy against judicial overreach. While his stance initially aligned with the government’s broader narrative, his ultimate downfall appears linked to his procedural actions as Rajya Sabha Chairman, which were perceived as “meddling” in judicial matters and an “indulgence” of the Opposition. This suggests that the executive’s tolerance for assertive constitutional functionaries extends only as far as their actions align with the government’s immediate strategic interests. The episode could lead to a recalibration of dynamics, potentially strengthening executive control over the legislative and even indirectly influencing the judiciary, if constitutional officeholders are seen to be under implicit pressure to conform to the ruling party’s agenda. This could further blur the lines of separation of powers, particularly if the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, a crucial legislative role, is perceived to be less an impartial arbiter and more an extension of the executive’s will.
Furthermore, this resignation sets a significant precedent for future high-profile exits from constitutional offices, particularly under political or health pretexts. Dhankhar is only the third Vice President to resign mid-term, and uniquely, the first to cite health reasons rather than to contest a Presidential election. This establishes a new template for exits from high office, where “health reasons” can serve as a convenient and face-saving mechanism to manage politically inconvenient situations or internal party disagreements. The lack of transparency surrounding the true reasons for his departure could normalize the use of such pretexts, making it harder for the public to discern genuine health issues from politically motivated resignations. This risks undermining public trust in constitutional processes and the integrity of high offices, as it suggests that even the most senior positions are not immune to political machinations and subtle pressures.
The circumstances surrounding Dhankhar’s departure underscore a concerning trend: the eroding autonomy of constitutional offices. When a constitutional functionary, even one who broadly aligns with the ruling party’s ideology, faces pressure or is compelled to resign for exercising procedural independence that is perceived as inconvenient to the executive, it sends a chilling message to other officeholders. This suggests that the independence of these offices is increasingly contingent on their occupants aligning with the political objectives of the ruling dispensation, rather than strictly adhering to their constitutional mandate without fear or favor. This dynamic could lead to a chilling effect, where future occupants of such offices may self-censor or avoid actions that could be interpreted as challenging the executive, thereby diminishing the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system.
The episode also contributes to the normalization of political expediency over constitutional propriety. The swift and terse reaction from the Prime Minister and the silence from senior cabinet colleagues, combined with the immediate political maneuvering, illustrate a political culture where the smooth functioning of power, even through implicit pressure, takes precedence over transparent constitutional processes. This approach, while perhaps effective in maintaining immediate political control, risks setting a precedent where the spirit of constitutional independence is sacrificed for short-term political gains. Such a pattern can gradually weaken democratic institutions by making them subservient to political will rather than serving as impartial pillars of governance.
X. Historical Context and Precedents of High-Profile Exits
Jagdeep Dhankhar’s departure, while unique in its stated reason, fits within a broader historical pattern of high-profile exits from constitutional offices in India, often driven by underlying political currents. He is only the third Vice President to resign before completing his term. His predecessors, V.V. Giri (1969) and R. Venkataraman (1987), both resigned to contest the Presidential election. This historical parallel immediately fueled speculation about a similar ambition for Dhankhar, even though his case is distinct as he cited health reasons. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat also stepped down as Vice President in 2007 after losing the Presidential contest, though not mid-term to contest.
Beyond Vice Presidents, Indian political history is replete with instances of high-profile resignations or transfers from constitutional posts, often under political pressure or due to shifts in power dynamics. Governors, Chief Ministers, and even Union Ministers have resigned for various reasons, including loss of majority, breakdown of law and order, corruption charges, or party withdrawals from coalitions. The imposition of President’s Rule in states, often following political impasses or loss of majority by Chief Ministers, has historically been a mechanism for the Union government to assert control, though the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) significantly curbed its abuse. The 1970s and 1980s saw frequent dismissals of state governments led by opposition parties, particularly under the Indira Gandhi regime.
Several recurring patterns can be observed. The use of “health reasons” as a convenient pretext for politically driven exits is a recurring motif. As discussed, India lacks robust public health disclosure norms for politicians, allowing this narrative to be employed when a graceful exit is needed to mask underlying political friction. This was evident in the widespread skepticism surrounding Dhankhar’s health claims, despite his reported medical history.
Another pattern is the strategic use of constitutional offices to manage political relationships or sideline inconvenient figures. The speculation around Nitish Kumar’s potential Vice Presidential candidacy, for instance, highlights how such high offices can be offered as a “golden handshake” to remove a powerful regional leader from state politics without causing overt political friction, thereby serving the larger strategic objectives of the dominant party. This instrumentalization of constitutional positions for political ends underscores a broader trend of executive dominance. The terse reaction from the Prime Minister and the silence from senior cabinet colleagues following Dhankhar’s resignation, coupled with the immediate political maneuvering, exemplify how subtle cues and implicit pressure can be used to achieve political objectives without overt confrontation. This suggests an institutionalization of executive dominance, where the independence of constitutional officeholders is implicitly expected to align with the government’s agenda.
A notable difference in Dhankhar’s case is his unique position as the first Vice President to resign for explicitly stated health reasons, distinguishing him from his predecessors who resigned to pursue the Presidency. This sets a new kind of precedent, potentially normalizing “health” as a more common and publicly acceptable reason for mid-term exits from high offices, even when political factors are strongly suspected.
The lessons from these historical patterns are clear for Indian political stability and constitutional norms. The recurring use of non-political pretexts for politically motivated exits, coupled with the lack of transparency, erodes public trust in institutions and fosters a culture of political opacity. While India’s constitutional framework provides for the independence of various offices, the practical realities of political power often test these boundaries. Strengthening institutional independence requires not only robust legal provisions but also a political culture that respects the autonomy of constitutional functionaries, even when their actions may not align perfectly with the executive’s immediate interests. Greater transparency in the reasons for high-profile resignations, potentially through clearer public disclosure norms for the health of officeholders, could contribute to a more accountable and trustworthy political system.
XI. Conclusions
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation on July 21, 2025, while officially attributed to “health reasons,” represents a multi-layered political event far exceeding a simple medical exigency. The analysis conclusively demonstrates that his departure was a culmination of escalating tensions between his assertive, independent style as Rajya Sabha Chairman and the central government’s expectations. His consistent advocacy for parliamentary supremacy and critique of judicial overreach, initially aligning with the ruling party’s narrative, ultimately became problematic when his procedural actions, particularly regarding the Justice Yashwant Varma impeachment motion, were perceived as an “indulgence” of the Opposition and “meddling” in sensitive judicial matters. This suggests that the executive values ideological alignment but not operational independence from its constitutional functionaries.
The timing of the resignation, the terse official reactions, and the immediate political maneuvers, including the prominent speculation around Nitish Kumar’s potential Vice Presidential candidacy and the emergence of other names like Ram Nath Thakur, strongly indicate a strategically driven exit. Dhankhar’s prior “divine intervention” comment, in retrospect, appears to be a veiled acknowledgment of unforeseen political pressures that compelled his early departure. This event highlights how high constitutional offices can be instrumentalized as strategic tools to manage intra-alliance power dynamics or facilitate leadership transitions, particularly in the context of crucial state elections like those upcoming in Bihar.
The episode underscores a concerning trend of eroding autonomy for constitutional offices, where occupants may face pressure to conform to the ruling party’s agenda. The “silent treatment” from senior government figures and the lack of effusive praise for Dhankhar’s departure signal a sophisticated, albeit opaque, method of conveying displeasure and exerting pressure. This reinforces a political culture where expediency can overshadow constitutional propriety, potentially blurring the lines of separation of powers and diminishing public trust in institutions.
Historically, “health reasons” have served as a convenient and untraceable veil for politically driven exits in India, exacerbated by the absence of transparent public health disclosure norms for high officeholders. Dhankhar’s resignation, being the first Vice Presidential exit explicitly for health reasons, sets a new precedent that could normalize such pretexts for future high-profile departures.
In sum, Dhankhar’s resignation is not merely a personal health decision but a significant political recalibration, reflecting the dynamic interplay of individual assertiveness, internal party dynamics, and broader strategic objectives within India’s complex political landscape. It serves as a critical case study in the ongoing evolution of institutional independence and the balance of power in Indian democracy.
Verbose, same two points repeated a hundred times to make it look like a deep analysis.