Members of Parliament (MPs), led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, Today (Dec 13) moved an impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. The motion was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General in response to remarks by Justice Yadav that have been perceived as targeting the Muslim community. This initiative, supported by the signatures of 55 MPs, is anticipated to be discussed during the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Members of Parliament (MPs), led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, today moved an impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court.
The motion was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General in response to remarks by Justice Yadav that have been perceived as targeting the Muslim community.
This initiative, supported by the signatures of 55 MPs, is anticipated to be discussed during the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament.
The motion argues that Justice Yadav’s statements-
“Prima facie constitute hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony, violating the Indian Constitution.”
Furthermore, it alleges that his remarks display an evident “bias and prejudice against minorities,” which undermines the impartiality expected of a judge.
The MPs also contend that Justice Yadav, by expressing opinions on political issues such as the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), has breached the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1997,” a code of ethics for judges.
To address these allegations, the MPs have urged Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar to forward the motion to the President of India. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, they propose constituting an inquiry committee to investigate charges of hate speech, fostering communal disharmony, and violating judicial ethics.
If the allegations are substantiated, the MPs have requested Justice Yadav’s removal from office.
Controversial Remarks by Justice Yadav
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s contentious remarks were made at an event organized by the legal cell of the right-wing group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). Among his statements, he reportedly used the slur “kathmullah” to refer to Muslims.
Additionally, he asserted that “India will function as per the wishes of the majority community,” sparking widespread criticism for promoting majoritarianism and undermining the constitutional principle of secularism.
Procedure for Removing a Sitting Judge
The removal of a judge, though rare and challenging, is a constitutional process under Articles 124 and 218, colloquially referred to as “impeachment.”
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the steps required for such proceedings:
- Initiation of Motion:
- The impeachment motion can originate in either house of Parliament.
- To initiate the process, at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members must sign a notice submitted to the Speaker or Chairman, respectively.
- The Speaker or Chairman reviews the notice, consulting relevant individuals and materials, and decides whether to admit or dismiss the motion.
- Investigation by Committee:
- If admitted, a three-member committee is formed to investigate the charges. The committee comprises:
- A Supreme Court judge.
- A Chief Justice of a High Court.
- A distinguished jurist.
- The committee frames charges and allows the accused judge to present a written defense.
- If admitted, a three-member committee is formed to investigate the charges. The committee comprises:
- Submission of Report:
- After completing the investigation, the committee submits its findings to the Speaker or Chairman. If the report concludes “misbehavior or incapacity,” it is presented to the respective house of Parliament for debate.
- Parliamentary Approval:
- For removal, the motion must be passed in each house by:
- A majority of the total membership of that house.
- At least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
- If both houses adopt the motion, it proceeds to the next stage.
- For removal, the motion must be passed in each house by:
- Presidential Order:
- Upon receiving the motion from Parliament, the President issues an order for the judge’s removal.
This stringent process ensures that the judiciary’s independence is not undermined while holding judges accountable for serious misconduct.
Key Constitutional Provisions
The removal of judges is governed by specific constitutional articles, ensuring a balanced approach that respects both the judiciary’s independence and the need for accountability:
- Article 124(4):
According to this provision, a judge can only be removed by a Presidential order following a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. This majority must come from two-thirds of the members present and voting.
“The judge can only be removed by a Presidential order, passed after a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.” - Article 218:
This extends the provisions for removal of Supreme Court judges to High Court judges, ensuring uniformity in the procedure.
The stringent requirements of the impeachment process uphold judicial independence by minimizing the influence of transient political interests.
Grounds for Impeachment
A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be impeached on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” as outlined in the Constitution of India. These grounds are further elaborated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which includes:
- Misuse of Office: Any instance where the judge exploits their position for personal gain or undue advantage.
- Grave Offences: Acts that fundamentally undermine the judge’s integrity.
- Constitutional Violations: Contraventions of provisions set forth in the Constitution.
“A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be impeached on two grounds: “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” as per the Constitution of India.”
The Impeachment Process
The removal process follows detailed steps under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, ensuring fairness and transparency.
- Initiation of Motion:
The impeachment motion must be signed by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha before being introduced. - Committee Formation:
Once the motion is admitted, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha constitutes a three-member inquiry committee to investigate the charges. The committee comprises:- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a judge of the Supreme Court as the chairperson.A Chief Justice from any High Court.A distinguished jurist, appointed by the Speaker or Chairman.
- Inquiry Process:
The committee conducts a thorough investigation, which includes:- Examining evidence.
- Cross-examining witnesses.
- Requesting medical examinations in cases of alleged mental incapacity.
- Outcome of the Inquiry:
If the committee concludes that the charges against the judge are unsubstantiated, the motion is dismissed.
However, if the judge is found guilty, the findings are reported back to the House for further deliberation.
“If the committee finds the judge not guilty, the motion is dismissed. If found guilty, it will be reported back to the House for further action.”
Instances of Impeachment in India
1993: Justice V Ramaswami (Supreme Court) faced impeachment proceedings on financial impropriety. The motion was unsuccessful despite a guilty finding.
2011: Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) was impeached for corruption but resigned before Lok Sabha could take up the matter.
2015: Justice S K Gangele (Madhya Pradesh High Court) faced impeachment on charges of sexual harassment, but the committee cleared him in 2017.
2015: Justice J B Pardiwala (Gujarat High Court) faced impeachment for controversial remarks about reservation but the motion was dropped after the judge expunged the remarks.
2017: Justice C V Nagarjuna (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court) faced impeachment for financial misconduct and victimizing a Dalit judge, but the motion was not pursued.
The Implications of the Motion
The motion against Justice Yadav underscores a crucial constitutional question: the balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence. By addressing alleged breaches of ethics and inflammatory remarks, the MPs have sought to uphold the judiciary’s integrity while reiterating the constitutional commitment to secularism and non-discrimination.
The controversy around Justice Yadav’s statements, coupled with the MPs’ decisive action, has sparked a national conversation about judicial conduct, communal harmony, and the sanctity of India’s democratic institutions. The coming parliamentary discussions and subsequent inquiry, if initiated, will likely set a significant precedent for the accountability mechanisms within India’s judicial system.
The impeachment process is an essential mechanism for holding judges accountable, safeguarding the judiciary’s integrity, and maintaining public trust in the legal system. The high threshold for impeachment underscores the commitment to judicial independence, ensuring that only serious breaches warrant removal.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Impeachment Motion
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
