VP: Only Parliament entitled to deal with Justice Yadav’s removal
Noting that 55 opposition MPs had given a notice for moving a motion to remove Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav as a judge of the Allahabad High Court for his alleged misconduct, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday asserted that only Parliament had jurisdiction to deal with the issue.
In a suo motu statement in the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar said the Rajya Sabha Secretary General had been asked to share the information with the Supreme Court Secretary General.
“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,” Dhankhar said. “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,” he said.
“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,” Dhankhar said.
Justice Yadav had on December 8 last year allegedly made certain communal comments at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in Prayagraj. In a purported video of his speech widely circulated on social media, Justice Yadav was seen saying that the law should work according to the majority.
Taking note of Justice Yadav’s controversial speech at the VHP event in which he allegedly endorsed the Uniform Civil Code and made certain remarks against Muslims, the Supreme Court had on December 10 called for details from the high court.
Justice Yadav had appeared before the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, on December 17, 2024, to clarify his controversial statement that did not go down well with the judicial fraternity.
As many as 55 opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha had given a notice, as provided for under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, for moving a motion to remove Justice Yadav as a judge for his alleged misconduct. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, can either admit or refuse to admit the motion for the removal of the judge.
However, if he admits the motion, a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a high court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist will be constituted to probe the complaint and determine whether a case is made out to initiate the process for the removal of the judge in question.
In case such a committee is set up and it finds the judge guilty of “misbehaviour or incapacity”, the motion for his removal will be taken up for consideration and debated in Parliament. To remove a judge from office, the motion has to be adopted by each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. After the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is sent in the same session to the President, who will issue an order for the removal of the judge.
Alleging breach of judicial ethics and constitutional principles of impartiality and secularism by Justice Yadav, Supreme Court lawyer and convener of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms Prashant Bhushan had written to CJI Khanna seeking an “in-house inquiry” into his conduct.
