INDIA bloc MPs sign motion to impeach HC judge
Opposition lawmakers have started the process to bring an impeachment motion against a sitting Allahabad high court judge over controversial comments on Muslims
Opposition lawmakers on Wednesday started the process to bring a motion for the impeachment of a sitting Allahabad high court judge whose controversial comments on Muslims and majoritarianism during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event three days ago triggered a storm of condemnation and calls for censure.
No judge of a constitutional court has been successfully impeached by Parliament in independent India’s history. Impeachment motions have been brought before Parliament seven times and in two cases, the judges in question have resigned, with one of them resigning even before impeachment proceedings were set in motion on the floor of the House.
The motion for impeachment is being moved both in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and the process of collecting signatures is currently underway. As per the rules for an impeachment motion to be considered for admission in the Rajya Sabha, the signatures of at least 50 lawmakers are needed. In the Lok Sabha, this number is 100.
Also Read: Allahabad HC judge to be impeached for ‘hate speech'? What Kapil Sibal said
The Opposition effort has already garnered around 38 signatures in the Rajya Sabha and around 50 in the Lok Sabha, said people aware of developments.
The Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance has the numbers to bring the motion in both Houses -- it has 237 members in the Lok Sabha and 86 in the Rajya Sabha -- but it might fall short if the motion is put to a vote. Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a judge may be removed from office on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The term “misbehaviour” encompasses actions that undermine judicial ethics, impartiality, and public trust in the judiciary.
Also Read: Supreme Court takes note Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Yadav's controversial VHP event speech
The INDIA bloc’s move comes a day after the Supreme Court took cognisance of reports surrounding remarks made by justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav during his December 8 speech. Justice Yadav reportedly made contentious statements about the Muslim community, the UCC, and the role of majority rule in India. Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using slurs and asserting that the country must function according to the wishes of the majority.
Justice Yadav’s speech included comments such as, “This is Hindustan, and this country would function as per the wishes of the ‘bahusankhyak’ [majority],” and references to practices such as triple talaq and halala, which he argued should not be permitted. He also stated: “Only a Hindu can make this country a ‘Vishwa Guru’.”
According to an Opposition lawmaker, the statements made by justice Yadav were “in contravention of the laid down rules for judges”.
“Remarks that were disparaging towards the minority, the issue of Ram Temple and Uniform Civil Code that he referred to violate the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Supreme Court, which mandates judges to maintain impartiality, equality, and restraint, both in their judgments and conduct outside court. We want the motion to be admitted and forwarded to the President of India in accordance with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968;” said the leader, not wishing to be named.
In the Rajya Sabha the notice to move the motion has so far been signed by former Union minister and independent lawmaker Kapil Sibal, Congress’s Vivek Tankha and Renuka Chowdhury, Trinamool Congress’s Saket Gokhale, Rashtriya Janata Dal’s Manoj Jha, Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s John Brittas, V Sivadasan and AA Rahim, Communist Party of India’s P Sandosh Kumar and PP Suneer, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha’s Sarfaraz Ahmed and Kerala Congress-Mani’s Jose K Mani, among others.
Both the YSR Congress Party and the Biju Janata Dal have not yet indicated whether they will sign the notice. YSRCP lawmaker Midhun Reddy said the issue will be discussed by the party and a decision announced subsequently.
“There are three broad charges against justice Yadav in the impeachment motion primarily underlining his hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony. He defied the directive principles enshrined in Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India, which mandate promoting harmony and renouncing practices derogatory to the dignity of individuals when he said the country would function according to the wishes of the bahusankhyak (majority),” the Opposition lawmaker quoted above said.
The MPs also took umbrage at his statement where he said many sacrificed their lives for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya because it was seen as endorsing views on political matters, in apparent violation of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1997.
National Conference MP Ruhulla Mehdi, who is moving the impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha, has so far collected signatures of more than 50 MPs, including All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen’s Asaduddin Owaisi, Nationalist Congress Party’s Supriya Sule, and lawmakers from Samajwadi Party, TMC and RJD, among others.
”It is clear from the evidence submitted by us in the Rajya Sabha that justice Yadav has indeed misbehaved and has no capacity to continue serving as a judge since his allegiance is not with the Constitution of India...This incidence also shows that the majoritarian ideology which stands contrary to our Constitution has penetrated even higher echelons of judiciary which is a dangerous trend for our country,” said Sandosh Kumar.
Justice V Ramaswami was the first judge against whom impeachment proceedings were initiated in the Lok Sabha in 1993. However, it failed to secure the required two-thirds majority.
In 2011, a motion was brought against justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta high court for misconduct. He later became the first judge to have been impeached by the Upper House. However, he resigned before the motion could be voted on in the Lok Sabha.
