Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year.
Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same.
Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma.
Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months.
"On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here.
"I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said.
On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said.
Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said.
A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees.
The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith.
'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said.
Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.'
The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said.
"I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said.
So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked.
'Communal' statement
"What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said.
"Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said.
So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said.
"So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said.
Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event.
The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale.
The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav.
The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India".
The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them.
At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism.
A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
44 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Security of Amarnath pilgrims is responsibility of Kashmiris: Mehbooba
People's Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti on Tuesday put the onus of security of Amarnath Yatra pilgrims on locals emphasising that it was the collective responsibility of Kashmiris in ensuring a peaceful and secure pilgrimage. The former J&K chief minister was in Pahalgam where she addressed a gathering of local business people, taxi drivers, hoteliers, pony walas and civil society members. 'People here have carried yatris on their shoulders. The people of Pahalgam are the one keeping alive Ganga-Yamuna composite culture,' she said and urged them to protect the yatris at any cost. 'This is your responsibility irrespective of how many military or security forces are here,' she said. 'This is your responsibility, and that of the pony wala , the shop keeper , the labourer, the hotelier or the youth,' she said. The annual Hindu pilgrimage to the Amarnath cave shrine in south Kashmir Himalayas is commencing from July 3 this year. Pahalgam is one of the two base camps of the yatra and authorities have charted out elaborate security measures for the safety of incoming pilgrims. Mufti sought an oath from the people present to protect the incoming pilgrims. 'Do you assure me and raise your hands and take oath that we will protect the Amarnath yatra pilgrims,' she said as people shouted in affirmative. 'More than army, forces or police, you have to protect them,' she said. Mufti also urged chief minister Omar Abdullah and the lieutenant governor Manoj Sinha to take swift action to reopen popular tourist destinations such as Chandanwari, Aru Valley, Betab Valley, and other parks in Pahalgam and questioned the delay in their opening. 'I want to ask CM Omar, no one stops you from giving jobs to retired people or transferring officers as you wish. If you can exercise your authority freely in these matters, why can't you ensure these parks are opened for the public?'. Later while talking to reporters, Mufti said that the situation changed in Kashmir after the attack in Baisaran. 'Tourism halted suddenly and due to that, 10,000 horse owners of Pahalgam, the local hoteliers, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, auto drivers and sumo drivers are in terrible condition,' she said. She said that she was in Pahalgam to talk to her party workers who live on the route to Amarnath shrine. 'I told them that the locals of Pahalgam have to protect the Amarnath Yatra. After that, people's trust will be reinstated and tourism will begin again,' she said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘We cannot seek justice for the past': Ram temple's officer-architect-in-chief Nripendra Misra
OBSERVING THAT there are 'limits' to correcting historical wrongs, Nripendra Misra, Ayodhya Ram temple's officer-architect-in-chief, has said that once people 'realise that the time has gone by and once they realise the dream of the future while living in the present, society will be more positive and look towards the issues of development.' Misra, who served as the Principal Secretary to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his entire first term, and was appointed the Chairman of the temple construction committee in February 2020, also said the Ram Mandir 'was accepted by all only because it was (a judgement) by the Supreme Court', but one 'cannot seek justice for the past' in all such conflicts. In an interview with The Indian Express two days after the consecration of the statue of Ram as the king of Ayodhya, Mishra said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was emphatic that the message people take away from the temple is not 'negative'. 'Nowhere have we used the name that such and such came and destroyed the temple. The message was, please do not discuss negative thoughts. He (the PM) kept mentioning that if you make that a prominent message, the younger generation would feel small. He did not want the younger generation to suffer from these temporary shocks that Sanatan Dharma failed. The younger generation should know how we have regained and conserved,' he said. Asked whether the completion of the Ram temple would encourage those who agitated for it to move on, or if more claims would arise for temples in different places, he said, 'I place this responsibility not so much on the government. It will have to be of various social groups, representatives, elected or not elected – they must recognise. They have limits on correcting issues. We all know that the time which has gone does not come back. We do not keep it in clutches. Once they realise that the time has gone by and once they realise the dream of the future while living in the present, then society will be more positive, and will look towards the issues of development.' 'After all, there is another agenda. You and I are worried. There is 7% growth. Will I maintain it? I am going to be the third country in terms of economic power very soon. Why can't I become number 2 or 1? China is always in our memory; that they are far ahead of us. If these are the challenges, we weaken society by disintegration. We should rather strengthen the society to divert this energy to development. In politics, there are different sets of opinions; sometimes you believe in it, sometimes you create. But they are all audible. Social leaders of my country have a great responsibility,' he said. On what the country should focus on now that it's on course to replace Japan as the fourth-largest economy, he said, '… we may have crossed (Japan) but they don't have so many poor, they don't have problems with proper nourishment. They don't have problems with education and health. I may say that I produce maximum milk, but does everyone take milk? The answer is no. So, my target should not be that I am maximum (at these parameters). My target should be, am I giving each individual the gains of my growth? I put health, wellness, hospitals at number 1, education at number 2, and third and most important, is empowering rural women. My agenda will be to achieve these goals.' Asked about instances like the Jama Masjid row in Sambhal, where a local court had granted permission for a survey in November last year, leading to clashes between protesters and the police, he said, 'It's a problem. Certain issues are in some manner localised. I always say the judgment on the Ram temple was accepted by all only because it was by the Supreme Court. Everything got normalised. Everyone was then following daily routines. We cannot seek justice for the past. It has to be forgotten.'
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
From street name to gobbledygook
The street sign says it all – Yahali 3rd Street. There are three of them, all connecting Anna Salai with GN Chetty Road, at Teynampet, very close to Semmozhi Poonga. Only Yahali is not the correct name. Google maps has compounded matters further. You need to search under Yaya Hali Street if you need to find it. The correct name is Yahya Ali Streets – 1, 2 and 3, and they take their names from Justice Yahya Ali of the High Court of Madras. The learned judge is not in public memory. When I spoke to a friend on this, he said that the Internet has no reference to such a judge, and I guess that would mean such a person did not exist. But he did. And when he died as a sitting judge in 1949, the High Court convened to condole his passing. The brilliant barrister and then Public Prosecutor V.L. Ethiraj led the mourners. He dwelt on the 'keen intellect, great learning, profound human understanding and exquisite courtesy we found in that frail figure.' But to get full biographical details we need to turn to the speech of an illustrious contemporary, V.C. Gopalaratnam who spoke on behalf of the Madras Advocates Association. Yahya Ali was born in August 1893 in Nellore, his father serving as Assistant Secretary in the Finance Department of the Nizams of Hyderabad. He graduated in History and Economics from the Presidency College in 1916 and then qualified in Law. He set up practice in Nellore and became Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. He was a member of the Madras Legislative Council as well. In between he became Chairman of Nellore Municipality, his election being testimony to the regard he enjoyed from all residents of the town. It was a place notorious for communal tension and being a Hindu majority, it was considered impossible for a Muslim to win the ballot. In 1926, Yahya Ali became District Judge, being posted in that capacity to various parts of Madras Presidency. His specialisation in matters concerning finance led to his being appointed by the then Imperial Government in 1942 as the Chairman of the Appellate Income Tax Tribunal where he equipped himself 'with a thorough and exhaustive knowledge of Income Tax Law and Procedure.' In 1945 he became a judge of the High Court of Madras. It is interesting to note that he sat in judgement till the last day of his life, taking ill on April 21, 1949, and passing away the next day. While these details are from Gopalaratnam's speech during the condolence meet, we learn some more from what the then Chief Justice had to say. Yahya Ali he noted, was a connoisseur of Telugu poetry and 'he was a deeply cultured person- culture with the best ingredients of what I may call Moghul culture – urbanity, catholicity and instinctive love of all that was beautiful.' What was his link to Teynampet? He was at the time of his death Mutawalli (trustee or guardian) of the Teynampet Mosque in which his family had taken a deep interest. It was also in the precincts of this mosque that Yahya Ali was buried. And eventually a locality was named after him. And from there, the name has morphed phonetically as it were, to what it is now with street names changing accordingly. I wish the Corporation would be more careful with street signs. We have suffered enough mutilation with truncation of many names to initials, morphing of others, and of course, name changes at the drop of a hat.
