Pranjit Saikia
(dr.pranjit1981@gmail.com)
The opposition in Indian politics is poised to advance a motion of no confidence against the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, thereby setting a historic and unparalleled precedent. Leaders of opposition factions, predominantly from the Congress, Trinamool Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and Rashtriya Janata Dal, have affixed their signatures in support of the motion, with 50 Members of Parliament formally submitting the requisite notice in the Rajya Sabha. Remarkably, in the annals of India’s independent history, no Vice President or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has ever been subjected to such a motion. Consequently, this manoeuvre by the opposition is widely regarded as a politically momentous development.
Article 67(b) of the Constitution delineates the provisions for the removal of the Vice President, stipulating that: “A Vice President may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People; but no resolution for the purpose of this clause shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution.”
Despite the INDIA alliance, representing the opposition bloc, lacking a majority in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, pivotal questions arise: What compels the opposition to initiate this audacious motion? What ramifications could ensue for the operational dynamics of the Rajya Sabha? And what would be the broader political fallout of this unprecedented action? These questions dominate the prevailing discourse.
Public sentiment unequivocally mandates that parliamentary sessions prioritize deliberations on pressing societal concerns and formulate actionable solutions. Both the government and the opposition bear an unequivocal obligation to fulfil this expectation. Yet, according to data from PRS Legislative Research, the productivity of the Rajya Sabha during the current winter session, inaugurated on November 25, stands at a mere 45%, while the Lok Sabha has managed a modest 61%. In the Rajya Sabha, merely 42.6 hours have been productively utilized: 4 hours for Question Hour, 9.4 hours for legislative activity, 20.8 hours for non-legislative discourse, and 8.3 hours for miscellaneous matters. With the session slated to conclude on December 20 and 21, and 1.1 hours already squandered on non-legislative and ancillary issues, the opposition’s decision to divert its focus toward a no-confidence motion—whose likelihood of success appears negligible—is seen as a misallocation of legislative priorities.
It is virtually certain that the introduction of a no-confidence motion against the Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha will exacerbate hostilities between the ruling dispensation and the opposition. While the INDIA alliance asserts that this move is a bid to safeguard ‘parliamentary democracy,’ Union Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju has categorically predicted the motion’s inevitable failure, citing the numerical dominance of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Analysing the current composition of the two Houses corroborates Rijiju’s forecast: the BJP-led NDA commands approximately 125 seats in the Rajya Sabha, compared to the INDIA alliance’s 112. In the Lok Sabha, the ruling coalition’s 293 members overshadow the opposition’s 238. Thus, even if the motion improbably clears the Rajya Sabha, its defeat in the Lok Sabha is all but assured.
The functioning of India’s parliamentary system hinges on adherence to a well-defined corpus of rules and procedures. It is incumbent upon both the government and the opposition to respect these regulations, and it is the prerogative of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to ensure the orderly conduct of the Houses. However, the efficacy of parliamentary proceedings is equally contingent upon fostering a harmonious rapport between the members and the presiding officers. The INDIA alliance’s decision to table a no-confidence motion against the chairman jeopardizes this essential equilibrium, potentially engendering an atmosphere of discord that could profoundly disrupt the Rajya Sabha’s functionality.
Although the opposition ostensibly justifies this no-confidence motion as a measure to uphold constitutional principles, it has conspicuously failed to elucidate how this manoeuvre addresses the immediate concerns of the populace. At a time when the nation grapples with a crippling unemployment crisis, soaring inflationary pressures, decelerating GDP growth, and a precipitous decline in purchasing power, the utility of such a motion remains elusive. While this political gambit might momentarily capture media attention, its tangible benefits for the electorate appear negligible. Consequently, even the opposition parties endorsing this initiative are unlikely to accrue substantial political dividends. Paradoxically, this move risks undermining the authority of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha while simultaneously furnishing the government with a compelling narrative to accuse the opposition of derailing parliamentary time and shirking responsibility for addressing substantive public issues.
During this parliamentary session, the Modi government had articulated an ambitious legislative agenda, including the introduction of the transformative “One Nation, One Election” bill. A high-level committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind has already tendered its recommendations, which have secured Cabinet approval, underscoring the government’s unwavering commitment to enacting this policy, notwithstanding resistance from opposition parties or civil society. The bill has already been tabled in Parliament. Similarly, the government remains resolute in its intent to amend Waqf Board-related laws. Despite opposition demands to prolong deliberations through an extension of the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s tenure, the Modi administration is determined to secure the bill’s passage within the winter session.
The opposition’s decision to prioritize the no-confidence motion over these critical legislative issues exposes a glaring lapse in accountability regarding matters that significantly influence India’s future trajectory. At the session’s outset, the opposition, particularly the Congress, disrupted proceedings by raising contentious questions concerning the relationship between Prime Minister Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani. Subsequently, they escalated their efforts by advancing the no-confidence motion against the chairman.
Notably, these endeavours bear scant relevance to the immediate challenges confronting the common citizenry. This may partially explain why key constituents of the INDIA alliance, such as the Trinamool Congress and the Samajwadi Party, refrained from aligning with the Congress-led initiative targeting Gautam Adani, thereby casting aspersions on the alliance’s cohesion. The INDIA alliance’s parliamentary conduct signals an entrenched determination to thwart the Modi government’s agenda while advancing its partisan objectives. Nevertheless, even if the BJP were to fall short of an outright majority in the impending Lok Sabha elections, it appears unyielding in its resolve to pursue its political and legislative objectives with characteristic vigour. This defiant posture serves to bolster the BJP’s narrative of resilience and fortitude in the face of adversity.
Simultaneously, the ruling party’s assertive approach has exacerbated the opposition’s insecurities, particularly against the backdrop of Congress’s underwhelming performance in recent state elections. Against this milieu, the opposition seems intent on staging parliamentary theatrics designed to emphasize their indispensable role in legislative deliberations. The no-confidence motion against the Rajya Sabha Chairman represents a calculated component of this broader strategy.
Yet, by engaging in such stratagems, the opposition risks sidelining meaningful discourse on issues of profound public interest—a misstep that could ultimately erode their credibility. It behoves the opposition to recognise that parliamentary disruption is a far less effective political strategy than presenting cogent and principled arguments on critical issues. Accordingly, a comprehensive reassessment of their approach is imperative.