Second in Line, Not in Power: The office of India’s Vice-President

Alleged protocol lapses had upset Jagdeep Dhankhar on multiple occasions. (Source: PTI/File)

The sudden resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar from the post of Vice President of India on July 21 sparked a debate for various reasons, all deeply interconnected. First, it raised important constitutional questions about the implications of such a high constitutional office being vacated mid-term. Second, it brought to the fore the political undercurrents and circumstances that may have compelled a decision of such magnitude.

But, beyond these immediate concerns, a quieter but equally significant thread of debate also emerged — one that delves into the very nature of the Vice-President's role as envisaged in the Constitution. What is the purpose of this office? Is it merely ornamental, or does it carry a deeper institutional significance?

Immediately after the resignation, there was much speculation on the reason behind the sudden exit. Among them, one that gained prominence was that Dhankar had started taking—to use his own words— “the second-highest constitutional position in India”, he was occupying, too seriously and began demanding protocols and treatment akin to the President and the Prime Minister.

Alleged “protocol lapses” had upset Jagdeep Dhankhar on multiple occasions, while his perceived over-assertiveness, in turn, had caused unease within the government.

De facto number two, or de jure second constitutional functionary?

It is important to analyse to what extent Dhankar was right in claiming and asserting his position as “number two”. Did the constitution makers envisage the Vice-President as ‘de facto’ number two or merely a ‘de jure’ second constitutional functionary?

The Constituent Assembly debates offer valuable insights in this regard. Framing of India’s Constitution: A Study, published by the Indian Institute of Public Administration under the chairmanship of B. Shiva Rao, reveals several interesting details about how the Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee envisioned the role of the Vice-President in the Indian Republic.

It is mentioned in the book that no provision for a Vice-President was made in the memorandum on the Union Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Adviser on May 30, 1947. In this memorandum, B. N. Rau had suggested that in the event of the absence of the President or of his death, removal from office or incapacity to discharge his functions, such functions would be performed by a commission consisting of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the presiding officers of the two Houses of the Union Legislature.

Rau, while differentiating between the office of Vice-President in the United States of America (USA) and India, highlighted an important fact. According to Rau, in the US, the President and the Vice-President were both elected at the same time and by the same procedure. If this principle were adopted for India, the two Houses of the Union Legislature, which, according to the memorandum, were to elect the President, would at the same time elect the Vice-President. This would mean that the Chairman of the Upper House of the Legislature would be a person elected by both Houses in a joint session, which Rau found inappropriate.

Nor did Rau consider it appropriate to adopt the reverse plan to make the Chairman of the Upper House the ex-officio Vice-President apparently for the reason that the Vice- President would function as President in the event of the latter’s absence or inability to discharge the functions, and since the President himself would be the choice of both Houses sitting together, it would not be proper that an officiating incumbent of the office was a person elected by one of the Houses.

Moreover, Rau thought that in an executive of the parliamentary type, there was hardly any room for a Vice-President between the President and the Prime Minister. In these circumstances, he suggested that the best course would be to copy the Irish plan of having a commission to discharge the President’s functions when there was a casual vacancy in that office.

State assemblies kept out of the Vice-President’s election

After much deliberation, the Union Constitution Committee at its meeting on June 8, 1947, decided in favour of having a Vice-President. The committee accordingly included a recommendation in its report that the Vice-President should be elected by both the Houses of Parliament in joint session on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. He would be ex officio President of the Council of States and perform the duties of the President in the event of the latter’s absence, or of his death, resignation, removal from office, incapacity or failure to discharge his functions.

K.T. Shah moved an amendment proposing that the Vice-President be elected concurrently and in the same manner as the President. A similar amendment was put forward by Mohammad Tahir.

Responding to these suggestions, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that since the President would serve as the Head of State with authority extending over both the Centre and the States, it was appropriate for members of State Legislatures, along with Parliament, to participate in his election. In contrast, the Vice-President's primary role was to preside over the Rajya Sabha, with only occasional and temporary responsibility as Acting President. Therefore, Ambedkar argued, it was not necessary to involve State Legislatures in the Vice-President’s election.

VP’s main role is to chair the Rajya Sabha

On multiple occasions, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that the primary role of the Vice-President was that of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. He reiterated this view during discussions on the provision for the removal of the President. Ambedkar clarified that the Vice-President’s functions closely resembled those of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and therefore, the procedure for the removal of the Vice-President was aligned with that of the Speaker, reflecting the similarity in their parliamentary responsibilities.

A close examination of the powers and functions of the Vice-President reveals that they are almost entirely rooted in his role as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. His designation as Vice-President assumes significance only in exceptional circumstances—when he is required to temporarily discharge the duties of the President due to resignation, impeachment, death, or any other vacancy in the office.

This contrast becomes especially evident when compared to the American model. As mentioned in some news reports during the recent visit of the American Vice President JD Vance to India, Dhankar sought a meeting with the US Vice President, framing it as an engagement between counterparts.

While nomenclature may equate the two offices, their constitutional weight and practical authority diverge significantly. The US Vice President automatically assumes the presidency upon a vacancy, ensuring uninterrupted executive continuity. In contrast, the Indian Vice-President only assumes the role of Acting President until a new President is elected—within six months—highlighting the Indian system's emphasis on electoral legitimacy over automatic succession.

Undoubtedly, the Vice-President stands second in the constitutional hierarchy, as reflected in the order of precedence. However, position in the constitutional text does not always translate into political or functional prominence in real terms. The Indian Vice-President occupies a high office structurally, but his influence is largely circumscribed by the limited and situational nature of his executive authority.