NEW DELHI: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned from his post on Monday evening, citing health reasons. While his resignation was officially attributed to medical advice, it has sparked speculation across political circles about possible underlying tensions within the government.
Dhankhar’s sudden departure — coming just a day after he accepted an Opposition-backed notice seeking the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, currently under scrutiny after a large cash recovery at his residence — has led to political murmurs in the corridors of power.
While there has been no official confirmation, some sources suggest Dhankhar’s decision to admit the Opposition’s motion may have clashed with the government’s strategy. It is being speculated that this divergence could have triggered discussions over his conduct, which Dhankhar may have pre-empted by stepping down.
The acceptance of the Opposition's notice did not align with the Centre’s plans, which were reportedly aimed at initiating its own action against the judge, as the motion in the Lok Sabha is a joint one signed by both ruling and Opposition MPs, said sources.
The notice in the Rajya Sabha, signed by 63 MPs, was admitted by Dhankhar on the first day of the Monsoon Session. He instructed the Rajya Sabha Secretary General to take the necessary procedural steps. This move was interpreted in some quarters as a signal that he may have acted independently, possibly causing friction with sections of the ruling party.
Further fuelling speculation was the absence of Union Ministers JP Nadda and Kiren Rijiju from a key 4:30 p.m. meeting of the Rajya Sabha Business Advisory Committee (BAC), a meeting Dhankhar had convened.
Opposition leaders have flagged this absence as significant.
"The Vice President was visibly upset," said a senior Opposition figure, who also cited a “controversial remark by Nadda, who is the leader of the house, during a heated debate in the House.
"Only what I say will go on record," Nadda reportedly said during Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge’s address, comments that some felt disrespected the Chair.
Nadda, however, dismissed the speculation.
“Kiren Rijiju and I could not attend the 4:30 p.m. meeting called by the Honourable Vice President because we were occupied with another important parliamentary engagement,” he said.
“Also, my remark in the Rajya Sabha was directed at interrupting Opposition MPs — not the Chair,” Nadda added.
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge declined to speculate on the reasons behind Dhankhar's resignation. “Only he knows the reason. We have nothing to say on this. Either the government knows, or he knows,” the Congress President told reporters.
Adding to the intrigue, just ten days ago, Dhankhar had publicly stated that he would retire in August 2027 “subject to divine intervention.”
He also had said that he, “son of a farmer” “never worked under pressure” nor did he make anyone work under pressure in Rajasthan. (“Mein kisan putra hun, kabhi dabav mein kaam nahi karta.”)
Some commentators point to Dhankhar’s outspoken criticism of the judiciary as a possible source of internal discomfort. Since taking office in 2022, he has repeatedly voiced concerns over what he termed "judicial overreach" and strongly criticised the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act — remarks that were, at the time, seen as echoing the government's position.
Dhankhar’s perceived keenness in yielding to the Opposition demand to remove Justice Shekhar Yadav seemed to have upset sections in the government. His firm stance on such matters and a perceived “my way or the highway” approach, insiders say, may have created unease within the ruling alliance.
Still, not all are convinced that political friction is the sole explanation.
“In politics, not everything is straight,” Congress MP Sukhdeo Bhagat commented, hinting at the possibility of multiple layers to the development.
As it stands, the official reason remains health-related.
Yet the timing and the events surrounding the resignation continue to be closely examined, with many in Parliament and beyond asking: Was it just ill health? Or something more?