'Is Govt Trying To Protect Justice Shekhar Yadav?' : Kapil Sibal Questions Lack Of Action On Impeachment Motion

Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal today questioned why Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has not taken any action on the impeachment motion moved against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for allegedly making communal statements and hate speech.Sibal convened a press conference today in the wake of a report of the Hindustan Times which suggested that the Supreme Court refrained from initiating an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav - as it did in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma - because it got a letter from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat that it was seized of the issue.Sibal said that Rajya Sabha Chairperson, even as he continues to sit over the impeachment motion, effectively stalled the in-house proceedings that the Supreme Court was contemplating against Justice Yadav."This is according to me very unfortunate and in fact, it smacks of discrimination for if, this is your case that having found out in the public domain that an in-house procedure was going on and since a petition was pending before you for impeachment, the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha decided to write and inform the Chief Justice of India that the motion is pending, and therefore, you shouldn't go forward with the in-house procedure. Whereas, we all know that the in-house procedure has nothing to do with the impeachment motion. That impeachment motion has not even been admitted so far. We filed the impeachment motion on December 13, 2024, and we are in June 2025, six months have passed, and the secretariat has not yet verified 55 signatures. How long does that take?" Sibal questioned.Sibal added that the Government is trying to protect Justice Yadav, who is set to retire in early 2026. Sibal questioned why VP Dhankhar, who holds a constitutional position, has failed to act on the application for impeachment for 6 months, despite that the number of signatories is 55 against the requirement of 50 MPs."Is the government trying to protect Justice Shekhar Yadav?" Sibal questioned."What's more shocking is that, if you remember, Justice Shekhar Yadav delivered a lecture in the high court's premises for the VHP, and the Supreme Court took cognisance of it, summoning Justice Yadav for an explanation. The Chief Justice of Allahabad was asked to give a report, and I have heard he gave a negative report. But in the meantime, the chairman on February 13, 2025, gave a statement saying the Parliament will take this matter forward, and therefore, there should not be any in-house procedure," Sibal added.Sibal remarked that the in-house procedure is initiated by the CJI and there is no relation between this and the impeachment motion initiated in the Parliament.Sibal: "Why was the in-house procedure established? The in-house procedure was developed for the CJI to determine whether there should be any proceedings against a judge who failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations. That's why there should be a prima facie investigation first to see if the allegations are true or not...In Shekhar Yadav's case, the Supreme Court was only to determine whether the statements made by him, which, according to me, are communal, should have been given or not and whether, after making such statements, he could continue as a judge or not....If the Government does not like the in-house procedure, there is a formal way to disallow it."On Justice Yashwant VarmaRegarding the case of Justice Yashwant Varma, Sibal alleged that the Government was trying to remove him based on the in-house inquiry report instead of following the procedure under the Judges (Inquiry ) Act. Doing so is unconstitutional, Sibal said, asserting that the in-house report is only for the Chief Justice of India."I have learnt they are saying, we don't want to refer this matter under the Judges (Inquiry) Act and want to remove the judge on the basis of the in-house report that has been forwarded to the President of India. I want to warn this Government, if they try that, it will be entirely unconstitutional because the in-house report was meant for the Supreme Court of India, not meant to be an inquiry which is followed through an impeachment motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act...If such precedents are created, it is a threat to judicial independence because what if once the in-house procedure is concluded, a judge is removed before the Judges Inquiry Act? This is an indirect way of controlling the judiciary. It is very dangerous to bypass the Judges (Inquiry) Act, and start removing judges on the basis of findings of the in-house procedure, which may be valid or invalid. "Sibal also remarked that VP Dhankar has shown untenable outrage in cases against the Government, for instance, the Tamil Nadu Governor matter wherein the Supreme Court considered the 10 Bills, pending since January 2020, were deemed assented.VP had remarked that the Supreme Court is using Article 142 as a "nuclear missile" and questioned how the Court could set timelines for the...

'Is Govt Trying To Protect Justice Shekhar Yadav?' : Kapil Sibal Questions Lack Of Action On Impeachment Motion

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

'Is Govt Trying To Protect Justice Shekhar Yadav?' : Kapil Sibal Questions Lack Of Action On Impeachment Motion

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers