In Indian politics, shock seldom travels alone—it arrives with silence, ambiguity, and the occasional pretext. The abrupt resignation of Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday evening, citing ‘health grounds’, is a textbook case in political theatre where the subtext speaks louder than the text. On the surface, it is projected as a dignified exit from public life. However, after scratching the surface, one finds a complex underbelly of institutional tension, strained political relationships, and an unsettling brush with the question of judicial accountability. Jagdeep Dhankhar, a seasoned constitutional expert and one of the few high functionaries to routinely challenge judicial overreach, had barely completed two years in office. His tenure was frequently marked by sharp observations and disciplined parliamentary protocol. And yet, the day he chose to step down is believed by many to be marred with a political friction point.
The timing is everything. On the first day of the Monsoon Session, amid regular parliamentary sparring and adjournments, Dhankhar accepted a motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The motion, introduced in the Rajya Sabha, was signed by over 50 opposition MPs. Coincidentally, as the reports suggest, a similar bipartisan motion was moved in Lok Sabha as well, which was signed by MPs including that of the ruling NDA. The reason cited for resignation by Jagdeep Dhankar appeared so unconvincing to many that the post-resignation narrative is fed largely by speculations. It is feared that Dhankhar’s hasty approval of opposition-signed motion might have irked the government. Political analysts find traces of the discord in the absence of JP Nadda and Kiren Rijiju from the second Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting called by Dhankhar in the evening. Was it a deliberate snub? One can’t say for sure, especially when Nadda himself negated such claims. Was Dhankhar’s acceptance of the motion seen as political insubordination? Possibly. Government sources have hinted that the Vice-President failed to take the executive into confidence. The judiciary, wary of external interference, already had its guard up; only hours before, the Supreme Court had refused an urgent hearing seeking an FIR against Justice Varma. Some believe that the government, not wanting to rattle the already tense equilibrium between the executive and judiciary, may have preferred quiet diplomacy. Dhankhar's move may have upended the entire strategy. What followed was a political domino effect. Rumblings of a government-backed no-confidence motion against the Vice-President began to swirl—ironically, months after the Opposition's own failed attempt. For a man known to take pride in parliamentary propriety and constitutional discipline, the idea of being targeted by his own camp might have been a line too far. Opposition leaders were quick to read between the lines. Congress’s Jairam Ramesh described the development as “inexplicable” and implied that Dhankhar’s principled stands, especially on judicial accountability, may have made him dispensable. Dhankhar had recently spoken against the growing culture of arrogance in public life and had consistently sought transparency and restraint from the judiciary—values that seem to have clashed with political realpolitik.
It has to be strictly pointed out here that most of these narratives are shaped by speculations. These are castles on sand. Even though his itinerary was planned beyond his resignation and his health seemed normal throughout the day to many, one cannot brush aside his apprehension around bad health. His admission needs to be respected before it is scrutinised based on credible facts. Still one should be overly cautious regarding the growing inability of key institutions to function independently without political fallout. Whether Dhankhar overstepped or whether the government underreacted—or overreacted—is a matter for future disclosure. But the incident and speculations around it have laid bare the fragility of India's constitutional architecture, particularly the uneasy truce between the three pillars of democracy. And unless the dust settles with more transparency, his departure will remain a dark abyss in India’s democratic journey.