INITIATION OF THE MOTION
In December 2024, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court became the center of a significant controversy following his remarks made during an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh on 8th December, 2024. His speech, which included the statement that India should function according to the wishes of the Hindu majority and other derogatory references to the Muslim community, drew widespread criticism.
In response, 55 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Rajya Sabha, including prominent figures such as Kapil Sibal, P. Chidambaram, and Digvijaya Singh, initiated an impeachment motion. The motion alleges that Justice Yadav’s remarks constitute hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony, violating his judicial oath and the Constitution of India. The MPs have urged the Rajya Sabha Chairman to forward the motion to the President of India, seeking the formation of an inquiry committee to investigate the charges and consider proceedings for his removal.
CONTROVERSIAL REMARKS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
Justice Yadav’s remarks during the VHP event have been widely criticized as communal and derogatory. His assertions that India should align with the wishes of the Hindu majority and his disparaging comments about the Muslim community have been labeled divisive and contrary to the secular ethos of the Constitution. Critics argue that such statements undermine judicial impartiality, threaten communal harmony, and erode public trust in the judiciary.
The impeachment motion highlights that Justice Yadav’s expression of political and communal views in a public forum represents a significant breach of judicial conduct. MPs have voiced concerns that such behavior compromises the judiciary’s integrity and raises questions about the ability of minorities to receive impartial treatment in his court.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Under Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution, judges can be removed before completion of their tenure for proved misbehavior or incapacity or both. Misconduct encompasses actions that erode public trust in the judiciary or contravene judicial ethics and impartiality. Justice Yadav’s remarks have been characterized as violating these principles, prompting demands for his immediate suspension while the motion is under consideration.
In defense, a plea has been filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the impeachment motion. The petitioner argues that Justice Yadav’s comments were made in a personal capacity during the VHP event and do not constitute hate speech. The plea contends that the remarks were directed at specific individuals rather than an entire community.
The Supreme Court of India has taken cognizance of the issue, with Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna directing the Allahabad High Court to provide details of Justice Yadav’s speech. This reflects the judiciary’s serious approach to the matter and its commitment to maintaining judicial impartiality.
This controversy underscores the critical balance between judicial independence and accountability. Public trust in the judiciary hinges on its perceived impartiality and adherence to constitutional values. Justice Yadav’s case serves as a litmus test for India’s ability to address judicial misconduct without compromising judicial independence.
HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS OF JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT IN INDIA
India’s judicial history includes several instances of impeachment motions: –
- Justice V. Rama Swami case 1993 – Justice V Rama Swami was a Judge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Removal motion was introduced in Lok Sabha against him due to corruption charges. Congress leader Kapil Sibal was his lawyer. At the time of voting, the Congress Party boycotted the voting and the removal motion against him was rejected. Later, he was appointed as a Judge in the Supreme Court.
- Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) was a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. In 2011, a removal motion against him was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the charges of him molesting his intern. A removal motion was passed by the Rajya Sabha. Soumitra Sen then immediately resigned to avoid his removal by the Parliament.
- Justice P.D. Dinakaran was the Chief Justice of Sikkim in 2011. There were corruption charges against him and there was a demand of his removal by the parliament through a Removal Motion. In the meantime, he resigned to avoid his removal by the Parliament.
- Justice J.B. Pardiwala (2015) was a Judge in the Gujarat High Court. In 2017, in his Judgement in the Hardik Patel case, he wrote two comments after the Judgement as that the two biggest hurdles in the progress of India are: –
a)corruption by politicians and
b)continuance of the reservation policy
This caused resentment among politicians and there was a demand for his removal by the Parliament. Later, Justice J.B. Pardiwala recanted his comments from his Judgement to avoid any removal motion to be introduced in Parliament.
Justice J B Pardiwala is now a judge in the Supreme Court.
- Justice C.S. Karnan was a Judge in the Madras High Court. He alleged that the Chief Justice and his fellow judges in the High Court discriminated against him as he belongs to the Dalit Community. Later, he was transferred to the Calcutta High Court. In his capacity as a judge in the Calcutta High Court, he wrote a letter to the PMO and accused 10 judges of the Supreme Court and 10 judges of the High Court that they are corrupt and the PMO should initiate investigations against them. After 2 weeks, he again wrote a letter to the PMO to know what action was taken by the PMO on his complaint. The Supreme Court took cognizance on his allegations and summoned him to appear before the court and explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him. He neither honoured the summons, nor appeared before the court. Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed the Director General of West Bengal Police to ensure his presence in the court.
Later, he appeared before the Constitutional bench led by the CJI, Justice J.S. Khehar and 8 other judges but refuses to give any written apology to dismiss the contempt of court proceedings against him. Rather he accused and threatened the judges and Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi that, he is going to report the matter to the National Commission of Scheduled Caste for discrimination against him as he belongs to the Dalit Community. He return to Kolkata and awarded five year imprisonment to the CJI and other 8 judges and to Attorney General.
Supreme Court then directed the Calcutta Medical College to form a team of psychiatrists to examine the mental health of Justice C. S. Karnan but he refused to appear before the medical board. After getting the report of the medical board, Supreme Court awarded him 6 months of imprisonment for contempt of Court in 2017. He is the first Judge of a High Court who was issued summons in a contempt of court case and the first Ex-Judge of a High Court who was awarded punishment in a contempt of court case.
These cases underline the procedural and political complexities involved in holding judges accountable.
CONCLUSION
The impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav highlights the ethical and constitutional challenges of ensuring judicial accountability. The case has sparked a national debate on the boundaries of judicial conduct, the processes for addressing violations, and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles. As the matter progresses, it will play a crucial role in shaping public confidence in the judiciary and its adherence to the rule of law.
