No Confidence Motion Against the Vice President

Recently, approximately 50 Opposition MPs signed a resolution to introduce a no-confidence motion against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who serves as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. This move, if executed, would mark the first instance of such a resolution in the history of the Indian Parliament.

Constitutional Framework

• Article 67(b): This article outlines the procedure for the removal of the Vice President. It stipulates that:
• The motion can only be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.
• It must be passed by an effective majority, which means more than 50% of the effective strength of the House.
• The resolution must then be agreed upon by the Lok Sabha with a simple majority (more than 50% of members present and voting).
• A minimum of 14 days' notice is required before moving the resolution.

Grounds for Removal

The Vice President can be removed for "violation of the Constitution." However, the Constitution does not clearly define what constitutes a "violation," which introduces a degree of ambiguity regarding the grounds for removal.

Implications of the Motion

• Political Significance: This motion reflects the growing tensions between the ruling party and the Opposition, highlighting the contentious political landscape in India.
• Precedent Setting: If successful, this motion could set a significant precedent for parliamentary procedures regarding the Vice Presidency.
• Potential Challenges: Given the requirement for an effective majority in the Rajya Sabha, the Opposition would need to mobilize support strategically to ensure the motion's success.

Reasons for Passing the Resolution Against the Vice President

• Lack of Space & Time to Express Views: The Opposition contends that parliamentary conventions dictate that the Leader of Opposition (LoP) should be allowed to speak when they rise. However, they claim that the microphone of Congress President and LoP Mallikarjun Kharge has frequently been turned off by the Vice President, limiting their ability to express views.
• Political Biasness: The Vice President, in their role as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, is expected to act impartially. If the Vice President displays political bias or favoritism, undermining the neutrality of the office, this could be considered a valid ground for removal.
• Rules and Convention: The Opposition argues that established rules and conventions must be adhered to for the effective functioning of the House. They believe that issues arising on the floor should be resolved there, rather than requiring the Opposition to seek resolutions in the Chairman’s chamber.
• Personal Remarks Against Members: The Opposition has accused the Vice President of making personal remarks against members of the House. Such behavior is prohibited under Rule 238(2) of the Rajya Sabha, which disallows personal charges against members.

Conclusion

The resolution against the Vice President is rooted in concerns over parliamentary conduct, perceived bias, and adherence to established rules. As these allegations unfold, they highlight the complexities of maintaining neutrality and decorum in the highest levels of governance.