India’s political landscape has seldom been short on drama, but the events of late August 2025 have brought a fresh wave of intrigue, controversy, and heated debate to the nation’s corridors of power. In the space of just two days, the country witnessed the sudden resignation of its Vice-President, the launch of a fiercely contested election to fill the post, and a legal tussle over election symbols that could shape the fate of smaller parties in the upcoming Bihar assembly polls.
On August 26, 2025, the incumbent Vice-President of India stepped down unexpectedly, setting off a chain of events that would capture the attention of politicians, pundits, and the public alike. As reported by The Hans India, the resignation was shrouded in mystery, with no official explanation forthcoming from the Vice-President or the Rashtrapati Bhavan. The abrupt departure mandated an immediate election, as the Constitution requires the post of Vice-President to be filled without delay.
The race for the coveted office quickly took shape. The ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) nominated C P Radhakrishnan as its candidate, while the opposition INDIA bloc rallied behind Justice (Retd.) B. Sudershan Reddy. The contest, however, was anything but a simple matter of ballots and manifestos. Allegations of vote theft, cross-voting, and party defections began to swirl almost as soon as the candidates were announced. “In the Vice-President election, will vote theft occur? Possibly! Cross-voting may happen. Defections may occur. People switching parties overnight are also common. Ten defectors from BRS may vote for Congress. Whether they do or not, cases will still be filed,” observed The Hans India, capturing the cynicism and skepticism that now pervades much of India’s electoral process.
This atmosphere of suspicion was only heightened by the recent actions of party leaders and the Election Commission. The article noted that, “Win or lose, it doesn’t matter anymore. They don’t agitate for the people of the local body, but fight to spend five years enjoying power as MLAs.” The focus, it seemed, had shifted from public service to political survival and personal gain.
The sudden vacancy also brought to light the pervasive influence of party loyalty—or the lack thereof—in contemporary Indian politics. With leaders like N Chandrababu Naidu and A Revanth Reddy having switched allegiances multiple times, and Chief Ministers of both Telugu states frequently changing parties or alliances, the line between ideological commitment and opportunism appears increasingly blurred. “As of today, without party defections, the Constitution would collapse,” The Hans India lamented, highlighting the instability and unpredictability that have become hallmarks of the current political era.
In the midst of this political churn, the campaign for Vice-President took a sharply personal turn. Union Home Minister Amit Shah leveled serious charges against the opposition’s candidate, Justice Sudershan Reddy, accusing him of enabling Naxalism through his judicial decisions. Shah specifically targeted Reddy’s role in the 2011 Supreme Court verdict that declared the Salwa Judum movement—an initiative that armed tribal youth as special police officers to combat Maoist insurgency—unconstitutional. According to Shah, “had the Salwa Judum judgment not been delivered by Justice Reddy, India might have eliminated Left-Wing Extremism by 2020.”
Justice Reddy, for his part, was quick to clarify his position. “I did not deliver the Salwa Judum verdict. That was a Supreme Court judgment,” he stated, emphasizing that attributing the decision to a single judge was misleading and incorrect. The verdict in question was, in fact, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar, and it reflected the collective wisdom of the Court rather than the personal opinion of any individual judge.
The controversy did not end there. Ironically, many of the same voices now criticizing Justice Reddy for the Salwa Judum decision had, in 2011, lauded his role in a landmark case aimed at retrieving black money stashed abroad. In that case, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Reddy and Nijjar, reprimanded the then-UPA government for its inaction and ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team to pursue the estimated $462 billion hidden in foreign accounts. At the time, BJP leaders hailed the verdict as a “slap in the face” of the government, with L K Advani describing the sum as one that could transform the nation.
Yet, in the heat of the current campaign, past praise has given way to present recrimination. The BJP’s IT cell has worked overtime to link Justice Reddy to individuals allegedly sympathetic to Maoist causes, while opposition leaders and commentators have decried what they see as a calculated attempt to smear a respected jurist’s reputation. The debate has spilled over into the public sphere, with social media users, self-styled intellectuals, and even casual observers weighing in on the merits and motives of both candidates.
Amidst this high-stakes contest, the mechanics of democracy itself have come under scrutiny. Questions abound: Do votes even get cast properly? Can vote theft be prevented? With the specter of high-tech manipulation looming large, many believe that the outcome is all but predetermined. “If elections are held, whoever the President supports will win. The rest of us will go about our everyday chores,” one observer quipped in The Hans India, capturing the sense of resignation that many now feel about the electoral process.
While the focus remained on the Vice-President’s election, another legal battle was playing out in the Delhi High Court with potential ramifications for India’s democratic fabric. On August 27, 2025, the Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider the plea of the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (ABJS) for a common election symbol in the upcoming Bihar assembly polls. As reported by The Hans India, ABJS argued that it had been contesting elections since its establishment in 1951, had been allotted the “sitar” symbol for the 2024 Andhra Pradesh assembly elections, and had repeatedly petitioned the ECI for a symbol for the Bihar polls—without receiving any response.
“The petitioner has a constitutional guarantee and a statutory right to contest elections subject to statutory safeguards and the non-allotment of an election symbol will take away its opportunity to contest elections,” the party asserted in its plea. The Court’s directive to the ECI underscored the importance of ensuring a level playing field for all political actors, big or small, and highlighted the procedural hurdles that often confront less prominent parties.
As the dust settles on a tumultuous week in Indian politics, one thing is clear: the country’s democratic institutions and traditions are being tested as never before. Whether it’s the sudden exit of a Vice-President, the mudslinging of an election campaign, or the struggle for recognition by smaller parties, the challenges facing India’s democracy are complex and deeply rooted. Yet, as history has shown time and again, the resilience of India’s political system—and the determination of its people—remain its greatest strengths.
