AS THE MONSOON session of Parliament commenced, a constitutional storm was quietly brewing over the fate of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. Few foresaw that it would soon engulf the vice president himself—also the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, where the motion to impeach Varma was taken up—shaking the constitutional architecture of India’s democracy.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar abruptly stepped down, citing the need to “prioritise health care and abide by medical advice”. His resignation, however, followed a reported fallout with the government over his decision to admit an impeachment motion against Varma in the Rajya Sabha. The motion, signed by 63 opposition MPs, was seen as a move led by the opposition. In contrast, the Lok Sabha saw a broader submission with 145 MPs from both ruling and opposition camps backing the motion. Dhankhar’s decision to admit the Rajya Sabha motion—without keeping the government in the loop—let matters come to a boil. The motion would give the opposition greater procedural leverage—and perhaps political credit—causing a potential embarrassment for the government.
The resignation, its quick acceptance and Dhankhar’s exit without a farewell was also interpreted by many as either an attempt to insulate the Rajya Sabha from a looming judicial crisis, or as a strategic escape from a politically explosive situation.
“I am not under pressure; I do not pressure anyone; I do not work under pressure; and nor do I make others work under pressure,” Dhankhar had said at an event in Jaipur on June 30. His past speeches, which are now surfacing, offer hints about what may have unsettled the ruling dispensation.
At a function last year, which was attended by Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Dhankhar had questioned the government’s policies that had triggered farmer protests several times. On another occasion, in response to US President Donald Trump’s claim of having brokered peace between India and Pakistan, Dhankhar said, “No power can dictate to India.” The comment, which came in the absence of any official response, bordered on diplomatic overreach.
Dhankhar was known for his outspoken ways even when he was West Bengal governor (2017 to 2022). He was often at war with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. After he became vice president, he made his presence felt on constitutional matters and propriety, often clashing with the opposition. In December 2024, he became the first Rajya Sabha chairperson to face a no-confidence motion moved by the opposition. The motion was declined on technical grounds.
Within six months, constitutional wheels have turned full circle. The impeachment motion against Varma has thrown the country into uncharted constitutional terrain—where the vice president has already quit.
What was already a sensitive episode involving serious allegations against a sitting High Court judge has now morphed into a potential crisis of institutional integrity, procedural confusion and political opportunism.
Soon after the discovery of unaccounted cash at Varma’s house in Delhi in March, the Supreme Court swiftly launched an in-house probe, transferring him back to the Allahabad High Court and halting his judicial duties. Sanjiv Khanna, then chief justice of India, formed a three-member panel to investigate the incident. The panel found Varma guilty of serious misconduct, prompting the CJI to seek his resignation. When he refused, the matter was escalated to the president, setting in motion the impeachment process.
Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, impeachment can only begin when at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha or 50 in the Rajya Sabha move a motion. Once admitted, a parliamentary committee that includes a Supreme Court judge, a chief justice of a High Court and a jurist investigates further. To remove a judge, the motion must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both the houses.
“The impeachment of a judge of the higher judiciary, like Justice Varma, follows a detailed and constitutionally prescribed process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,” P.D.T. Achary, former secretary general of Lok Sabha, told THE WEEK. “Once a motion is admitted in either house, it must be examined by a three-member inquiry committee. In the Rajya Sabha, this motion is usually dealt with by the chairman, who is the vice president.”
But, with Dhankhar’s exit, what happens to the motion? “The deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha would preside over the house and handle the procedural responsibilities related to the motion,” said Achary. “The absence of a vice president does not stall the process—the Rajya Sabha secretariat continues to function, and the chain of command is maintained through existing parliamentary rules.”
The Election Commission has initiated the process to elect the new vice president. The ballot process is secret—the vice president is elected by an electoral college comprising both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members through a system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. Until the position is filled, the deputy chairman has to ensure procedural integrity and smooth functioning of the Rajya Sabha, including in the case of an impeachment motion.
After the impeachment motion is accepted—either in the Lok Sabha or in the Rajya Sabha—a three-member committee will be constituted to start the inquiry process. But Dhankhar’s resignation may place the impeachment process in limbo. The Constitution, as well as the Judges (Inquiry) Act, do not specifically envision a situation where the presiding officer exits midway through an impeachment motion. As the government would not want a messy situation in Parliament, it may take time to resolve the two issues at hand—election of a new vice president and the judge’s impeachment.
Dhankhar’s exit has highlighted the fragile balance between judicial independence and public accountability. No sitting judge has ever been removed through impeachment in India’s history. If this case moves forward, it could become a defining constitutional moment.
For Varma, the implications are both immediate and long-term. With Dhankhar’s resignation complicating impeachment procedures in the Rajya Sabha, Varma continues to hold his office even though no judicial work has been assigned to him. He has also pushed the Supreme Court into uncharted territory by making the unconventional move of challenging the court’s in-house inquiry process that resulted in the CJI recommending his removal from office. He has moved the Supreme Court against both the in-house inquiry report and the CJI’s recommendation.
The court, which is likely to take up Varma’s case in the coming weeks, now faces the delicate task of determining whether the judiciary can intervene in a process that is fundamentally legislative in nature. The matter is legally and politically sensitive. The Supreme Court may decide to issue directions or guidelines to ensure fairness in such proceedings without derailing the constitutional scheme that vests impeachment powers in Parliament.
This is not Parliament’s first brush with impeachment. In 1993, a motion to remove Supreme Court Justice V. Ramaswami failed in the Lok Sabha. Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court resigned in 2011 after the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion. He remains the only judge formally impeached by the upper house.
The vice presidential election would be crucial to the process of impeaching Varma. Several names are doing the rounds. Age will be a key factor, as the new incumbent will serve a five-year term—ruling out many BJP veterans.
The government has the numbers to get its candidate elected, but the election presents an opportunity for the opposition to test its unity. In the last two vice presidential polls, the opposition had fielded Gopalkrishna Gandhi against Venkaiah Naidu in 2017, and Margaret Alva against Dhankhar in 2022.
Given the present crisis, the BJP may back a leader with strong ideological credentials. Governors and Union ministers could be potential candidates. The vacancy also gives the party a chance to reward a senior leader amid a generational shift under the new party president. The BJP is expected to time the appointment alongside changes in the Union cabinet.
In the past, the BJP has used constitutional posts to send political messages—nominating a dalit and later a tribal leader as president. This time, an upper-caste candidate may be considered, balancing representation. Experience and authority will also be essential, since managing the Rajya Sabha requires both.
The storm is far from over, and the situation calls for deft political handling. Some sense that Dhankhar may have unwittingly triggered a broader reorganisation within the BJP and the government.