Today, On 10th June, Kapil Sibal slammed VP Dhankar’s ‘inaction’ on the impeachment notice, asking, “Whether this Govt is trying to protect Justice Shekhar Yadav,” after the judge allegedly made controversial remarks at a VHP event on Uniform Civil Code.
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not acted on the notice for initiating an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, alleging that the government was attempting to protect the judge following his “entirely communal” remarks last year.
Referring to Justice Yadav’s comments on the Uniform Civil Code, made on December 8, 2024, Sibal noted that the judge stated Hindus did not expect Muslims to adopt their culture but simply asked that they not disrespect it.
Sibal, also a senior advocate, expressed concern over what he described as “discrimination,” pointing out that while the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to the Chief Justice of India to stay an in-house inquiry against Yadav due to a pending petition, no similar action was taken in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma.
Sibal emphasized the unfortunate nature of the situation, stating,
“On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken.”
He further questioned the responsibilities of those in constitutional positions, asking,
“Should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav.”
He mentioned that Justice Yadav had made statements on the High Court premises based on “instructions” from the VHP, which subsequently led to Supreme Court action.
In December, Justice Yadav remarked,
“I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority.”
Sibal noted that a video of the speech was circulated on social media by attendees. The judge asserted that while he respected his Hindu faith, that did not imply any “ill will” towards other religions.
He added,
“We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married… we don’t want you to take a dip in Ganga… but we expect you to not disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country.”
Sibal stated,
“Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI of the Allahabad High Court. I heard the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.”
He added that the Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI requesting no action, indicating that the matter would be addressed due to the pending impeachment motion, and asserted that the Supreme Court should halt its in-house inquiry against Yadav.
Sibal questioned,
“I don’t understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC’s own; it has no connection with the impeachment motion.”
He further argued that if the impeachment motion had not even been admitted, there should be no relation to the Supreme Court’s inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, the connection remained tenuous.
Sibal stated,
“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 totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement.”
He questioned why no letter had been sent regarding the in-house inquiry against Justice Varma, suggesting,
“So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav? We think they want to save him.”
Sibal speculated that either no action would be taken or that some signatures on the impeachment notice would be rejected, ultimately delaying the process until Yadav’s retirement in 2026.
He concluded,
“So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal.”
On December 13, members of several opposition parties submitted the impeachment notice against Justice Yadav for his controversial remarks at a VHP event.
The notice, signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, and others, sought to initiate proceedings under the Judges’ (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, citing that Justice Yadav’s speech constituted hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony.
The notice also claimed that the judge displayed bias against minorities. At the VHP function, Justice Yadav had stated that the primary aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality, and secularism.
Following the event, videos of his remarks on provocative topics circulated widely on social media, eliciting strong reactions from opposition leaders.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
