Latest news with #ShekharYadav
NDTV
25-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Impeachment Move Against 2 High Court Judges Amid 33% Vacancy Crisis
New Delhi: The government and the opposition are both pursuing the impeachment of two judges from the Allahabad High Court. The competing push to sack the senior judges has been seen as building each side's 'anti-corruption' credentials ahead of a critical election in Bihar this year. But it also comes amid a staffing crisis. A third of all High Court judges' seats are vacant. Two Judges, Two Controversies The government (and the opposition) have called for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, then a Delhi High Court judge. after piles of burnt cash were found at his residence. A motion to impeach was tabled in the Lok Sabha on Monday, but the judge has moved the Supreme Court challenging the judiciary's in-house report that recommended he be sacked. Impeachment proceedings have also been demanded against Justice Shekhar Yadav after controversial comments at an event by right-wing group Vishwa Hindu Parishad. A group of 55 MPs wrote to the Rajya Sabha in December asking he be fired. 33 Per Cent High Court Posts Vacant However, while impeachments make headlines, the judiciary must sort out its numbers problem. The Law Ministry, in response to a query by Congress boss Mallikarjun Kharge, told the Rajya that 371 High Court judge posts - 33 per cent of the total - are vacant. There are 1,122 High Court judge positions in total. Of these only 751 are currently occupied. Proposals to fill 178 of the empty seats are being processed by government and the Supreme Court Collegium. Recommendations for 193 are still pending from High Court collegiums. Why The Delay? The delay is reportedly because of a complicated appointment process as laid down by Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution. The entire process involves several steps - a shortlist is drawn up, after consultation with the state government, by the two senior-most judges of a High Court. The recommendations are sent to the Supreme Court Collegium for approval. However, despite guidelines stating High Courts should submit these recommendations six months before any vacancy arises, the Law Ministry has said the timeline is not followed. It has stressed the appointment process is "continuously integrated and collaborative exercise" between the executive and judiciary, making it hard to determine a timeline for filling vacancies.
Hindustan Times
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Motion to impeach justice Yadav stalled due to forged signature: Dhankhar
Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday informed the House about an ongoing enquiry related to an alleged forged signature in a motion for the removal of justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad high court, suggesting that this was the reason for the hold-up in a process initiated in December. His comments came hours before he unexpectedly resigned as Vice President. The notice was submitted by the MPs on December 13, 2024, after a controversial speech by justice Shekhar Yadav at a VHP event was widely criticised for promoting hate speech and majoritarian rhetoric. (HT) Addressing the House, he said, 'In December, a motion under Article 124 was submitted for my consideration for removal of a judge of the high court of Allahabad. That motion was purportedly from 55 members. I examined that and found one particular member has signed at two places. The result was the representation of the motion indicating 55 members seeking removal, but, actually it was only 54 and not 55.' The notice was submitted by the MPs on December 13, 2024, after a controversial speech by the judge at a VHP event was widely criticised for promoting hate speech and majoritarian rhetoric. A motion for the removal of a judge has to be signed by not less than 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. Dhankar said that the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have received the requisite numbers. He said that an enquiry was conducted about the second signature. 'The honourable member declined his second signature. That made the matter a little more serious, because it was required of me to get to the bottom and find out whether the representation merited consideration. The process was initiated for verification of signatures and authentication. That process is in progress. I will get a full update and come back to the House. If a motion carries two signatures of the same member and the honourable members declines by saying it was signed at only one place and not two, then the matter becomes serious and culpable.' Dhankhar said that the Rajya Sabha has to set high standards and live up to the expectations of the people. 'If we do not live up to the highest expectations of the people, then we'll be putting things under the carpet and not subjecting them to deep investigation. I will discuss with the floor leaders as to the steps that this House needs to take with respect to such kinds of transgressions.' he said. Opposition MPs have complained about the delay in acting on a notice by the parliamentarians calling for an impeachment motion against the judge. On December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes. While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad high court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns 'consistent with constitutional values'. Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026. People cited above said that the then CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad high court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But, in March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav's conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration. The letter followed Dhankar's comments in Parliament. In February, he said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter 'The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,' he said in Parliament on February 13. On Monday, Dhankar also spoke about the recovery of ₹500 notes from the seat allotted to a member in the House. The Rajya Sabha Chairman said that no member had come forward to claim ownership of the notes. 'I must also inform the House that there was an occasion in this house where on seat number 222, a pad of ₹500 notes was found. What is more surprising is and is deeply concerning is not that a pad of notes was found but no one has owned it. No one has claimed it. This is quite serious . I had asked authorities to get into the matter seriously, but, it appears now that the matter will have to be dealt with. And that too I will put before the floor leaders for further consideration and guidance,' he said. On December 6, Dhankhar had informed the House that during a routine anti-sabotage check the previous day, security personnel had found a wad of currency notes on a seat number 222, allotted to Congress MP and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Singhvi has denied any involvement, terming the situation 'bizarre'.
Indian Express
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Samajwadi Party MP: ‘Congress came to us several times on impeaching Justice Varma … tried to tell them it is BJP's move'
Samajwadi Party MP Javed Ali Khan talks to The Indian Express about his party's stance on the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, why they won't support the motion if the Opposition's impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav is not taken up Why did SP MPs not sign the notice on Justice Yashwant Varma's removal? There is no doubt that SP is against corruption. But it was the BJP that first talked about an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma… BJP's objective was not to finish corruption… BJP's objective is to prove itself a champion against corruption. The Opposition parties had given an impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav (of Allahabad High Court who made a controversial speech at a VHP event last year), which is pending with the Rajya Sabha Chairman… Our stand was that if the government takes up the Opposition's impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav, then we will support the impeachment motion against Justice Varma. But some of our Opposition parties, in the apprehension that BJP may take a lead on the issue of corruption, moved an impeachment motion against Justice Varma much before the government. The government should take up the impeachment motion against Justice Yadav with the same sincerity and conviction. Because corruption is nothing in comparison to the communalisation of judicial institutions… If the impeachment notice against Justice Varma is adopted and voting happens, what will be SP's stand? We will not support if the impeachment motion is taken up against Justice Varma only. If the government… gives any assurance to take up impeachment motion against Justice Yadav, we will be in support of both motions. A decision will be taken at the time of voting. But when the discussion will happen on Justice Varma, SP will focus on Justice Shekhar Yadav. Doesn't the Opposition appear divided on the impeachment notice? You can say the Opposition appears divided. I can say the Opposition appears… to be rallying behind the BJP (on impeachment notice against Justice Varma). Has SP discussed the matter with Congress or any other Opposition party? Congress approached the SP several times and said we should move a notice for Justice Varma's impeachment before the BJP moves. Several rounds of discussion happened. We tried to convince them that this is BJP's move… The BJP is not ready to talk about Justice Yadav… The SP joined other Opposition parties in Parliament on Monday the issue of Pahalgam terror attack. What is the party's demand? There are two things — Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor. BJP's notice is for a discussion on Operation Sindoor. The Opposition wants a discussion on the Pahalgam attack, which was a security breach… Pahalgam is a failure of the government. Discussion should happen on this matter. Operation Sindoor is an undisputed operation… There should be no debate on it… The BJP wants to take credit for the Army's bravery and success.
The Hindu
19-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Take up notice for impeaching Justice Yadav along with Justice Varma: John Brittas
With nearly all parties backing a notice demanding impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, CPI(M) leader John Brittas on Saturday (July 19, 2025) said the notice for impeachment of Justice Shekhar Yadav should also be taken up. Justice Varma has been in the dock since sacks of half-burnt cash were discovered in the outhouse of his residence in Delhi in March this year, when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. Justice Varma has denied the allegations, asserting that neither he nor any family member had stored currency in the storeroom. 'We feel that the integrity of the judiciary needs to be maintained, the transparency needs to be maintained,' Mr. Brittas said. 'We are for the impeachment of Justice Varma. We have already expressed our desire to be part of that impeachment process.' He added that a notice demanding the impeachment of Justice Yadav is also pending with the Rajya Sabha chairman. 'Nevertheless, there is a notice pending with the Rajya Sabha chairman with regard to (Justice) Shekhar Yadav, all his utterances were against the fundamentals of the Indian constitution. So, I feel that the government will take up both these matters together,' Mr. Brittas told PTI. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has said he is coordinating with leaders of different parties on the motion for impeachment of Justice Varma, to ensure that a unified stand of the Parliament comes out. He also asserted that it is not the government but members of Parliament cutting across party lines who are in favour of moving a motion to remove Justice Varma. Last December, Opposition MPs moved an impeachment notice in the Rajya Sabha against Justice Shekhar Yadav for allegedly delivering a hate speech at a gathering last year. The CPI(M) leader also said it was 'unfortunate' that the responsibility to allocate the budget for Manipur had been relegated to the Parliament. 'It's unfortunate that the Parliament has to pass the budget of Manipur. The Parliament has to again extend the President's rule there... and our honourable Prime Minister has time to visit so many nations... but hasn't got the time to visit Manipur or to bring this Manipur issue to the Parliament,' he said. The government is set to seek Parliament's nod for an extension of the President's Rule in Manipur and place the Demand for Grants of the state for the approval of the House in the Monsoon session, scheduled to commence from July 21. There will be a total of 21 sittings of both Houses till August 21. The session will take a break from August 12 to August 18 for Raksha Bandhan and Independence Day celebrations.
India Gazette
26-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
AIMPLB urges political parties to address Justice Shekhar Yadav's controversial remarks
ANI 26 Jun 2025, 17:48 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], June 26 (ANI): The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has formally appealed to major political parties to take appropriate action regarding remarks made by Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court during a speech delivered on December 8, 2024, within court premises. In its representation, the AIMPLB conveyed deep concern over the lack of response to what it described as a troubling deviation from constitutional values. The letter, authored by AIMPLB General Secretary Maulana Mohammed Fazlur Rahim Mujaddidi, condemned the speech for allegedly reflecting a sectarian viewpoint under the guise of constitutional interpretation. 'The Learned Judge,' the Board stated, 'appears to have disregarded the constitutional stature of his office and spoken from a perspective shaped by personal beliefs rather than the inclusive spirit of India's secular principles. Such remarks challenge the neutrality expected from the judiciary and threaten the Rule of Law.' The Board underscored that religious freedom and cultural practices -- particularly within the domain of personal laws -- are safeguarded by the Constitution and must be protected in a nation as diverse as India. It cautioned that silence in the face of such incidents could set a dangerous precedent. Six months after the speech, the Board voiced disappointment with the political leadership's failure to respond. It urged all parties to reinforce the constitutional ethos and ensure that members of the judiciary maintain impartiality and refrain from expressing partisan positions. The letter concluded with a strong call to action: 'It is imperative that the political class initiates appropriate constitutional steps to uphold judicial neutrality and safeguard the secular character of the nation.' (ANI)
