Editorial: Politicisation of constitutional posts

It was sudden, somewhat mysterious, and intriguing. The exact circumstances surrounding Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's mid-term resignation are not known. The purported reason he gave was that he wanted to prioritise healthcare and abide by medical advice. There are not many takers for this reason, and speculations are rife in the Capital’s corridors of power. In the last decade or so, there has not been adequate flow of credible information, and transparency in political matters is not one of the virtues the powers that be can claim with conviction. Secondly, the absence of media reports about gradual drifting apart or friction, if any, between him and the ruling party points to the tight control over narratives. It might serve the establishment’s agenda, but it is a moot question if it would also be beneficial to the cause of democracy.

In hindsight, journalists and political analysts are now speculating about the growing chasm between Dhankhar and the government. Retrospectively, old videos and statements are being dug out to substantiate claims. Going by his track record, it does not seem credible. After changing his politics and joining the BJP, he has been more loyal than many old-time hardcore BJP leaders drawn from the RSS. It was once widely believed that he was “Delhi’s man” in Kolkata Raj Bhavan, whom the Trinamool Congress leaders would criticise for being the “unelected hatchet man” of BJP. That he aggressively went after the non-BJP government headed by a fiery and popular chief minister seems to have tipped the scales in his favour and made him a suitable choice for the post of Vice-President so that he could use his proven skills in dealing with a strong and assertive Opposition in Rajya Sabha. And, that he seemed to have done satisfactorily as he had earned the wrath of the Opposition, which criticised him for being “partisan”, so much so that to make a political point, it even moved in vain a no-confidence motion against him in December 2024.

Dhankhar did hold an opinion divergent to the government’s stand on the issue of protests by farmers. But he more than compensated with his positions on “corruption in judiciary” or on Sanatana Dharma, which would appear to be quite extreme for a person holding the second highest constitutional position in the country and who is expected to be above political agendas. People holding high constitutional positions are expected to uphold the dignity of the office by refraining from expressing views that could be interpreted as having political import and could be construed as furthering the ruling party’s political agenda.

In contrast to the ruling party’s somewhat restrained and muted response in showering praise on Dhankhar, the Opposition was relatively more generous in displaying political civility and courtesy by not raking up old issues or recalling unsavoury past. Instead, quite appropriately, they are making the right noises about his contribution and virtues like being a stickler for norms, etc.

The larger question, however, is the growing concern about politicisation of constitutional posts such as Vice-President and Governor. Somewhere along the way, the lines are being crossed, which adversely impacts their role as impartial guardians of Constitutional functioning that fosters healthy parliamentary democracy. It is time to bring back the required high degree of impartiality and political neutrality to constitutional positions.