Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar stated that only Parliament has the power to decide on the removal of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. His remarks came after 55 opposition MPs submitted a notice seeking the judge’s removal over alleged misconduct. He emphasized that such matters must follow constitutional procedures. The issue has sparked political debate, with legal experts closely watching the developments.
New Delhi: Noting that 55 opposition MPs had submitted a notice to move a motion for the removal of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav from the Allahabad High Court due to alleged misconduct, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar emphasized that only Parliament has the authority to address this matter.
In a suo motu statement in the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar indicated that the Rajya Sabha Secretary General was instructed to forward this information to the Supreme Court Secretary General.
He stated,
“Hon’ble members, I am seized of an undated notice for motion received on December 13, 2024, bearing 55 purported signatures of members of the Rajya Sabha seeking the removal from office of Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.”
Also Read: [Justice Shekhar Yadav’s ‘Majority’ Remark] “I’m Not Apologetic”: VHP Chief Alok Kumar
He added,
“The jurisdiction of the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the Chairman of the RS and in an eventuality with Parliament and the hon’ble President.”
Dhankhar continued,
“Taking note of the public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha, shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court.”
Justice Yadav allegedly made communal comments during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in Prayagraj on December 8, where he stated that the law should align with the majority. Following this, the Supreme Court requested further details from the high court on December 10.
On December 17, 2024, Justice Yadav appeared before the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, to clarify his controversial remarks, which drew criticism from the judicial community.
The motion for his removal was put forth under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, and if admitted by Vice-President Dhankhar, a three-member committee would be formed to investigate the allegations.
Should this committee find Justice Yadav guilty of “misbehaviour or incapacity,” the motion would be presented for debate in Parliament.
For a judge to be removed, the motion must be approved by a majority of the total membership in each House, as well as by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. Once passed, the motion is sent to the President, who will issue the removal order.
Prashant Bhushan, a Supreme Court lawyer and convener of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, has also written to Chief Justice Khanna, alleging that Justice Yadav breached judicial ethics and the constitutional principles of impartiality and secularism, calling for an “in-house inquiry” into his conduct.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court recently come under scrutiny for his controversial comments made during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. He remarked that “India will function according to the wishes of the majority” and referred to certain individuals as “kathmullahs” who are against the nation.
This follows earlier statements in which he asserted that “scientists believe the cow is the only animal that exhales oxygen” and called for the cow to be designated as the national animal. These comments have ignited discussions regarding the appropriateness of judges voicing personal opinions and the potential implications for judicial impartiality.