India’s Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently launched a scathing attack on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over remarks the latter made in the United States, accusing Gandhi of undermining the Indian Constitution. Gandhi, no stranger to controversy, has often aimed his verbal salvos at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with his overseas speeches being thinly-veiled criticisms of India’s democratic fabric under the Modi administration. But the Vice-President’s public remarks has raised an important constitutional question: Should a figure occupying one of the highest apolitical offices in the land act as a de facto spokesperson for the ruling party?
Vice-presidents are meant to embody neutrality. According to the Constitution, India’s Vice-President, like its President, is expected to rise above partisan squabbles, representing the entire polity rather than a single faction. The office of the Vice-President holds a unique position—it is second only to the President, and also serves as the chair of the Rajya Sabha, or the upper house of Parliament. In this role, impartiality is critical to maintain the balance of power between the government and the opposition.
Yet Dhankhar’s outburst against Gandhi hints at a troubling erosion of this impartiality. While the Congress leader’s comments about India’s democracy and Constitution may warrant scrutiny, the Vice-President’s role is not to censure political figures but to uphold the dignity of his office and the constitutional values he is tasked with safeguarding. When a vice-president adopts the language of a party loyalist, it undermines not only the office he holds but the very essence of India’s democratic institutions.
This is not an isolated case. Indian politics has a long history of its vice-presidents showing leanings towards the ruling establishment. In the late 1970s, Vice-President B.D. Jatti, who briefly acted as President, was criticized for his perceived proximity to the ruling Congress party under Indira Gandhi, especially during the Emergency. Similarly, Gopal Swarup Pathak, Vice-President from 1969 to 1974, was accused of leaning towards Congress when he controversially withheld assent for a crucial bill, allegedly under pressure from the ruling party.
More recently, Hamid Ansari, who served as Vice-President from 2007 to 2017, was frequently targeted by the BJP for allegedly displaying a ‘pro-Muslim’ bias, though Ansari himself consistently maintained his commitment to the Constitution. To be sure, the criticisms Gandhi made abroad may well have crossed the line of diplomatic propriety, but such remarks should ideally be rebuffed by government ministers or party leaders—not the Vice-President. By involving himself in the day-to-day political fray, Dhankhar risks reducing his office to just another tool in the hands of the ruling establishment. Ultimately, the Vice-President is not a partisan warrior but a custodian of constitutional values. Regardless of whether Rahul Gandhi’s criticisms of the government deserve rebuke, it is not the Vice-President’s role to deliver it. When they act as political enforcers, they not only diminish their own role but also erode the public’s trust in India’s constitutional institutions.
Comments