According to sources, ministers Kiren Rijiju, Arjun Ram Meghwal and JP Nadda repeatedly cautioned Dhankhar in the days leading up to the Monsoon Session. Their preference was for the motion to originate in the Lok Sabha, allowing government-controlled proceedings. The official stance, reiterated by Meghwal, asserted that impeachment is primarily a parliamentary affair beyond executive influence.
Dhankhar’s office maintained he acted within parliamentary rules. Nevertheless, his unilateral announcement of the motion’s receipt during the Rajya Sabha Business Advisory Committee meeting triggered alarm. The convening meeting at 12:30pm was followed by a tense 4:30pm session, which the Leader of the House and Parliamentary Affairs Minister skipped—a move widely interpreted as a rebuke. Opposition leader Jairam Ramesh later suggested that something “very serious” must have occurred between those times.
Senior ministers then pressed Dhankhar to reconsider. Union health minister Nadda, relaying Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s displeasure, stressed the importance of consensus via the Lok Sabha mechanism, pointing out that opposition leader Rahul Gandhi had already signed the notice there.
Despite these warnings, Dhankhar stood firm. Shortly afterward, he was reported to have spent over 25 minutes waiting at Rashtrapati Bhavan before submitting his resignation, telling President Droupadi Murmu that he must “prioritise health care and abide by medical advice”.
Resignation notification followed swiftly and the Election Commission must now launch a 30–32‑day timetable to elect a successor. In the meantime, unanswered questions linger over the status of the impeachment motion in the upper house.
The procedural crux lies in whether Dhankhar formally admitted the motion, or merely acknowledged its submission. If admitted, the motion—requiring the formation of a statutory committee—advances through the constitutional framework; if only submitted, its future is unclear.
Meanwhile, judicial developments continue. Varma has petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the three‑judge inquiry panel report and former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation to trigger impeachment proceedings. The panel had validated allegations of burnt and unburnt cash discovered in Varma’s Delhi residence, deeming the misconduct serious enough to warrant removal.
Over 200 MPs, across party lines, filed a draft notice in the Monsoon Session’s first hours, signalling broad support for the impeachment initiative. Legal experts argue the case marks a rare instance of institutional introspection into the judiciary, testing Parliament’s mechanisms for accountability.
Dhankhar’s resignation marks a sharp inflection in the balance between constitutional oversight and political alignment. It reflects not only a constitutional jolt but also a personal rupture between a high‑ranking constitutional officeholder and a government he once staunchly supported. Mission to uphold parliamentary processes now falls to his successor—and the coming weeks will determine whether due process can proceed unhampered.