New Delhi, Jun 10 (PTI) - Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, a veteran politician and senior advocate, has raised serious questions regarding the apparent inaction of Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar concerning an impeachment motion notice against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav. Sibal, known for his incisive legal acumen, attributed this delay to an alleged attempt by the government to shield Justice Yadav after he made remarks deemed "entirely communal" last year.
Addressing a press conference, Sibal pointed out what he sees as "discrimination." On one hand, he explained, the Rajya Sabha's secretary general urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) not to proceed with an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav, citing a pending petition before the Upper House. However, the same restraint was seemingly absent in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma.
Sibal also lamented the inaction over a significant period. He noted that on December 13, 2024, an impeachment notice was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Chairman, but no actionable steps have been taken over the past six months, despite it being endorsed by 55 MPs. Sibal emphasized the need for accountability from those in constitutional posts, questioning why verifying signatures should take such prolonged time and whether there’s an intent to protect Justice Yadav.
The situation took a turn when, following instructions reportedly from the VHP, Justice Yadav made a controversial speech at the high court premises, which later reached the Supreme Court's attention. The CJI of the Allahabad High Court reportedly gave a negative assessment of Justice Yadav, further adding to the controversy.
Sibal questioned the appropriateness of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat's directive to the CJI to halt in-house action, seeking clarification on the rationale behind stopping an independent inquiry. He argued that the impeachment motion notice should not impede an internal inquiry by the Supreme Court, calling into question the unusual correspondence from the Chairman to the CJI.
The judge’s comments have been widely criticized and interpreted as biased, with videos of a speech at a VHP function showing Justice Yadav speaking on controversial matters, which were perceived as inciting communal disharmony. The notice presented by the opposition cited these remarks as a basis for impeachment under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution.
Sibal also contrasted this with the lack of similar action concerning Justice Varma, suggesting political biases in handling judicial accountability. He speculated that if no action is taken, or signatures are rejected, the delay might allow Justice Yadav to retire in 2026 unscathed by the controversy.
The impeachment notice submitted by several opposition MPs, including noted figures like Jairam Ramesh and Digvijaya Singh, stems from Justice Yadav's speech advocating the uniform civil code, which was accompanied by remarks perceived as aligning judicial functions with the majority’s interest, stoking communal tensions.
The situation remains fraught with complexity, as members await a decisive step forward in addressing this sensitive judicial and political matter.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
