Amidst growing speculation about the sudden resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar from his role as Rajya Sabha Chairperson, Congress MP and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi stirred the political pot further by suggesting that Dhankhar's departure was not voluntary but orchestrated by the central government. Singhvi alleged that the government, alarmed by Dhankhar's apparent independence and willingness to process the Opposition’s impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, reacted hastily to reclaim authority over the impeachment proceedings.
At a press conference held on Saturday, Singhvi remarked that Dhankhar’s error was not one of political misconduct or legal transgression, but rather his perceived attempt to exercise institutional autonomy, even if belated. “It seems that Mr Dhankhar’s real misstep—if it can be called that—was the demonstration of a minimal level of independence, and unfortunately for him, that was considered unacceptable,” Singhvi stated, criticizing what he implied was the Centre’s intolerance toward dissent, even within its own appointed ranks.
India Today had earlier detailed the rising tensions between Dhankhar and the central government. According to insider accounts, the breaking point came when Dhankhar expressed intent to proceed with an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma—this after a major controversy emerged in March when burnt currency notes were discovered at Varma’s residence, triggering serious judicial and political ripples. Dhankhar, sources say, had even initiated conversations with a senior Congress figure and was preparing to officially accept signatures from Opposition MPs to activate the motion in the Rajya Sabha.
As pressure mounted, high-ranking Union ministers, including BJP national president JP Nadda and Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, reportedly engaged in repeated outreach attempts to persuade Dhankhar. Their goal was to integrate signatures from ruling party MPs, thereby projecting the motion as a bipartisan effort. However, Dhankhar is believed to have resisted these overtures, maintaining his position that the Opposition’s collective voice alone should be acknowledged at this procedural stage. This defiance, reportedly, sparked significant dissatisfaction within the BJP ranks and ultimately precipitated his resignation from the prestigious Vice-Presidential post.
Commenting on this dramatic development, Singhvi accused the central leadership of panicking under institutional pressure and engineering Dhankhar’s removal to regain a firm grip over the unfolding impeachment narrative. He stated, “This government does not tolerate even symbolic independence. They acted swiftly to eliminate any uncertainty or imbalance that might arise from having a Rajya Sabha Chair who could act independently during such a sensitive process.”
Speaking to the press, Singhvi declared, “This government is obsessed with control to the point of sabotaging constitutional procedures. According to statutory rules, if identical motions are introduced in both Houses on the same day, the inquiry committee must be formed jointly by the Chairs of both Houses. This provision is precisely what the government wanted to circumvent by removing Dhankhar from the equation.”
Labeling the entire episode as a case of “constitutional sabotage,” Singhvi alleged that the Centre’s actions exposed deep-seated insecurities and revealed a broader pattern of manipulating parliamentary rules to suit political ends. “They wanted the motion in the Lok Sabha to take precedence, not one arising from the Rajya Sabha, where they felt less in control. So their solution was simple: remove the Vice-President who might not fall in line,” he said with sharp criticism.
Taking his critique further, Singhvi highlighted the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the BJP’s stance on judicial integrity. He pointed out that while the government has taken swift action in Justice Varma’s case, it has remained conspicuously silent on Justice Shekhar Yadav, who made controversial public comments perceived by many as bordering on hate speech. Singhvi claimed this illustrated a broader double standard in the BJP’s approach to judicial accountability.
He said, “The BJP selectively chooses when to champion legal standards. They’re loud and outraged when it serves them politically, but completely silent when the issue doesn’t align with their narrative. Justice Yadav’s remarks, made at a VHP event, were not just inappropriate but dangerous. Yet the government has shown no urgency or interest in addressing them.”
Drawing attention to the contrast in treatment, Singhvi noted, “When it comes to Justice Varma, they are moving motions in Parliament. But in Justice Yadav’s case, their response has been absolute silence. It’s as if judicial propriety matters only when it suits the BJP’s image management.” He concluded by saying that the party’s strategy around judicial motions has become less about upholding the law and more about crafting political optics.
