The lawmaker and senior advocate questions Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar’s inaction on the impeachment motion
NEW DELHI – The Narendra Modi government is trying to save Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after his “entirely communal” remarks made at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in Allahabad last December, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal claimed on Tuesday.
Sibal, also a prominent lawyer, questioned why Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against the judge, media reports said.
The lawmaker said the whole incident smacks of “discrimination” as, on one hand, the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to the Chief Justice of India not to go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, but it did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma.
Justice Varma recently came under scrutiny after burnt sacks of unaccounted cash were found in his Delhi home, leading to many questions. The issues that are likely to be discussed during the upcoming monsoon session from July 21 are corruption and impeachment against him.
Sibal, currently president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is occupying the constitutional post that is second in the hierarchy does not fulfill constitutional obligations in six months.
“On 13 December 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha. It had signatures of 55 MPs. Six months have gone [by], but no steps have been taken,” Sibal said at a press conference in the national capital.
“I want to ask those who are sitting in constitutional posts: their responsibility is only to verify whether signatures are there or not; should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav,” reports quoted Sibal as saying.
On the “instructions” of the VHP, Yadav had made a speech in the high court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court, which took action, he said.
Justice Yadav had reportedly stated that India should run according to the will of the majority and made remarks perceived as targeting the Muslim community. A video of the speech was circulated widely on social media.
“Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice gave a negative report and, amidst this, on 13 February 2025, the [Rajya Sabha] Chairman said that the matter should be looked at constitutionally and Parliament can take it forward,” Sibal said.
The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking that no action be taken, and it was said that the matter would be taken up in the Rajya Sabha as there was an impeachment motion notice, so the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Yadav, Sibal said.
“I don’t understand on what basis this happened. Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is the Supreme Court’s own; it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now, [the] impeachment motion has not even been admitted. It has been six months and only signatures are being verified,” Sibal said.
“So, when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what connection does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it have with the inquiry?” Sibal asked.
“What Justice Yadav said is before everyone — there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as, according to us, this is a communal statement — and also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement,” Sibal said.
“Why did you not write a letter over the in-house inquiry against Justice Varma? So, does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav? We think they want to save him,” he said.
Sibal said either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that “we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time, which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026,” he said.
“This is unfortunate, and it smacks of discrimination. The government intends to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal,” he said.
Members of several opposition parties on 13 December had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Justice Yadav over his controversial remarks.
The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale.
The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges’ (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking the initiation of proceedings for the impeachment of Justice Yadav.
The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during the VHP event, prima facie, showed that he “engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India”.
It also mentioned that the judge, prima facie, showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them.
