As many as 55 Rajya Sabha members have submitted a motion to impeach sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, on Friday, December 13. In the motion submitted to the secretary general of Rajya Sabha, the MPs sought to constitute an inquiry committee to investigate the charges of “hate speech, communal disharmony, and violations of judicial ethics” and initiate appropriate proceedings to remove him from office. The MPs also asked the secretary general to admit the motion and forward it to the President. In order to move an impeachment motion, it should be signed by at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
The process of removing a High Court or Supreme Court judge from their position is colloquially referred to as impeachment. In the history of independent India, no judge has been removed, although the process has been started against several judges.
In their motion, the MPs have said that the actions of Justice Yadav are sufficient to prove “grounds of misbehaviour” and constitute charges for impeachment for the reasons of engaging in hate speech and inciting communal disharmony; targeting and making discriminatory remarks against minorities; violation of judicial ethics; and breach of Constitutional mandate.
There are three charges put forth against the judge: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, in an event organised by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India; he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against the minorities; and he entered into public debate or expressed his views in public on political matters relating to Uniform Civil Code in violation of the law.
In an event by VHP on December 9, 2024, the judge delivered a lecture on ‘Uniform Civil Code: A Constitutional Necessity’, in which he made several controversial communal statements. Without naming any communities, he drew comparisons between two religious communities, claiming that one “instills values of kindness and non-violence in children,” while the other “fosters intolerance by exposing children to animal slaughter”. The judge went on to give his reasoning for why there was a difference between the communities. “Here, from childhood, children are guided towards god, taught Vedic mantras, and told about non-violence. But in your culture, from a young age, children are exposed to the slaughter of animals. How can you expect them to be tolerant and compassionate?” he said.