He further questioned the rationale behind referring the motion to the Supreme Court “It is something that is entirely within the House. It has nothing to do with any institution outside the House. So, I can’t possibly see the rationale for sending it, sending the motion to the Supreme Court of India because they, as a matter of law, have nothing to do with the motion in the House.”
Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar recently stated in the House that an impeachment notice against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, submitted by Opposition MPs in December last year, is still pending with him. He emphasized that only Parliament has the constitutional authority to remove a High Court judge.
ALSO READ: Justice Shekhar Yadav Cancels Event On Ram Mandir Movement, Denies Social Media Rumors
Chairman’s Statement on the Impeachment Notice:
“Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India,”
Dhankhar said.
The impeachment motion was initiated by Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal and signed by 55 MPs. The move came in response to Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event.
Kapil Sibal’s Response to Dhankhar’s Statement
Sibal, in an interview with Media, shared his views on Dhankhar’s statement and the delay in processing the impeachment notice.
Process of a Judge’s Impeachment
Explaining the procedure, Sibal said:
“The fact of the matter is that when a motion is moved for the removal of a judge, the rules of the House require that if it is in the Rajya Sabha… at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha should affix their signatures on the motion. And, of course, they should set out the grounds on which it is sought to be moved. And all that the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is supposed to do is to verify the signatures and allow the motion to be carried, unless he has some real reasons as to why that motion is not legally entitled to be moved.”
He further questioned the rationale behind referring the motion to the Supreme Court:
“It is something that is entirely within the House. It has nothing to do with any institution outside the House. So, I can’t possibly see the rationale for sending it, sending the motion to the Supreme Court of India because they, as a matter of law, have nothing to do with the motion in the House.”
He clarified that the Supreme Court only becomes involved at a later stage:
“It is only when the motion is passed and under the Judges Inquiry Act, a committee is set up, and then that committee gives the report, then at that point in time, through the Supreme Court, that report is sent to the Rajya Sabha and then the proceedings take place thereafter.”
Was Dhankhar’s Move Unexpected?
When asked if Dhankhar’s decision surprised him, Sibal responded:
“No, no, I can’t possibly say this surprised me, but I don’t know the reason why he has done that.”
He speculated on possible reasons for Dhankhar’s action:
“Maybe he thinks that there is some in-house procedure that is pending, of which I don’t think he could have had any private knowledge, because these matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court is following an in-house procedure, that procedure, again, has nothing to do with any other constitutional institution. So, I don’t see the connection between the two. If he has done it, it must be for a reason that I’m not aware of.”
Is There a Delay in Processing the Notice?
Sibal expressed concerns about the time taken to address the impeachment motion:
“The Chairman of the House is a significant constitutional authority. So I was expecting that whatever is to be done should be done quickly. But I guess he must have his own reasons for doing what he has done.”
What Do the Rules Say About This?
Sibal emphasized that constitutional responsibilities should be carried out in a timely manner:
“Every constitutional authority has to discharge the constitutional responsibilities in a reasonable manner. For example, if the Cabinet in a state government takes a decision or passes a law and sends it to the Governor, the Governor too is expected to take a decision in a reasonable manner and not sort of sit on the file, so to say.”
Referring to recent Supreme Court proceedings analyzing a Governor’s constitutional responsibilities, Sibal said:
“You have seen proceedings happening in the Supreme Court recently, and how a particular Bench in the Supreme Court is analysing the constitutional responsibilities of the Governor in this context. So, I think every institution, especially institutions charged with constitutional responsibilities, must carry them out as expeditiously as possible and do what they are supposed to do.”
He urged for a swift decision on the impeachment notice:
“And I do hope that whatever may be the decision, whether or not to accept the motion, should be taken as quickly as possible, despite the fact that the Chairman may have sent the motion signed by 55 members of the Rajya Sabha to the Supreme Court for information.”
Are There Any Written Rules About This?
Sibal acknowledged that conventions play a crucial role in the constitutional process:
“There are unwritten conventions which are fundamental to the constitutional process which should be followed.”
