An impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has stirred intense debate, not only within legal circles but also in political and public spheres. This motion, signed by 55 Rajya Sabha MPs, including prominent opposition leaders like Kapil Sibal and Digvijaya Singh, stems from Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks made during a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in Prayagraj.

At the heart of the controversy are statements seen as politically charged, touching on sensitive topics like the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and religious practices, which some argue breach the impartiality expected from members of the judiciary.

What Did Justice Yadav Say?

Justice Yadav, appointed as an additional judge in 2019, recently made statements that attracted widespread attention:

• Support for the UCC: He called for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code, arguing that it should be enforced across all communities to ensure gender equality and eliminate practices like polygyny and triple talaq.
• Comments on Religious Practices: He remarked that certain practices in the Muslim community, such as the right to marry multiple women or engage in Halala, were “unacceptable” and unconstitutional.
• Criticism of Extremism: Justice Yadav referred to extremists as “kathmullahs,” describing them as a threat to the nation and urging caution in dealing with such individuals. However, he also clarified that not all individuals within the community support harmful practices like triple talaq, female foeticide or inciting people, acknowledging that many are against these practices.
• Cultural Remarks: He compared the cultural upbringing of children in different communities, suggesting that those raised in more violent or intolerant environments would naturally struggle with values of non-violence and tolerance.

What Significance Does This News Have?

This motion is more than a legal issue—it has deep implications for India’s judiciary, politics, and social fabric.

1. Judicial Independence and Ethics: Judges are expected to remain neutral and uphold public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. Justice Yadav’s remarks have been viewed by critics as breaching this trust, especially since they were made in a highly politicized setting. The motion underscores the critical need for judges to separate their personal views from their judicial responsibilities.
2. Impact on the UCC Debate: The Uniform Civil Code has long been a contentious issue in India. Justice Yadav’s strong advocacy has reignited discussions around it, sparking both support and opposition. However, judges are expected to interpret laws rather than endorse political or religious stances, which forms a central concern of the impeachment motion.
3. Political and Social Implications: Justice Yadav’s statements reflect a larger tension between ideological influences and judicial impartiality. While his comments resonate with some, they have alienated others who view them as divisive and misaligned with India’s pluralistic ethos. The motion thus raises questions about the judiciary’s role in safeguarding diversity and equality.
4. Setting a Precedent for Judicial Conduct: If the motion proceeds, it could set a historic precedent for addressing judicial misconduct. Success would reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to ethical standards and neutrality, sending a clear message that public trust in the legal system cannot be compromised.

How Can a Judge Be Impeached in India?

The process of impeaching a judge in India is outlined in Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It ensures that judges maintain the highest ethical and professional standards while also safeguarding judicial independence. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Step-by-Step Impeachment Process

1. Initiation of Motion:
   • An impeachment motion can be initiated in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.
   • It requires a minimum of 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha to sign the motion.
2. Submission to the Presiding Officer:
   • Once the motion is signed, it is submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Vice President of India).
3. Preliminary Scrutiny:
   • The Presiding Officer decides whether to admit the motion. If admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is formed.
   • This committee typically comprises a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.
4. Inquiry Committee Investigation:
   • The committee investigates allegations against the judge, conducting hearings and reviewing evidence.
   • The committee submits its report to the Presiding Officer.
5. Debate and Voting:
   • If the inquiry committee finds the judge guilty, the report is presented in the respective house of Parliament.
   • To pass the motion, it must be supported by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in both houses of Parliament.
6. Presidential Approval:
   • After being passed in Parliament, the motion is sent to the President of India.
   • Upon approval by the President, the judge is formally removed from office.

Grounds for Impeachment

A judge can be impeached for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” as stated in Article 124(4). Misconduct may include corruption, bias, or any act that undermines the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary.

History of Judicial Impeachment in India

1. Justice V. Ramaswami (1993):
   • He was the first judge to face impeachment proceedings in independent India. Allegations included financial irregularities during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
   • The motion failed as the Congress Party abstained from voting, preventing the required two-thirds majority.
2. Justice Soumitra Sen (2011):
   • Accused of financial misappropriation while acting as a Calcutta High Court judge, Justice Sen was impeached by the Rajya Sabha.
   • Before the Lok Sabha could vote, he resigned from his position.
3. Justice C.S. Karnan (2017):
   • While not impeached, Justice Karnan of the Calcutta High Court was found guilty of contempt of court by the Supreme Court and sentenced to imprisonment. His case raised questions about judicial accountability.
4. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav (2024):
   • The current impeachment motion against Justice Yadav has reignited debates on judicial ethics, with accusations of inflammatory and politically biased remarks. The outcome remains uncertain as it requires strong parliamentary consensus.

Challenges in the Impeachment Process

• High Threshold for Approval: Securing a two-thirds majority in both houses is politically challenging, making impeachment rare.
• Judicial Independence vs Accountability: While judges must be held accountable, the impeachment process must not undermine judicial independence.
• Political Dynamics: Party loyalties often play a role in the success or failure of impeachment motions. Modi’s hung government will be tested quite well.

Conclusion

The impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav underscores the critical importance of maintaining judicial ethics and neutrality within India’s legal framework. Despite its significance, the motion faces slim chances of success, as it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament and acceptance by the Rajya Sabha’s Presiding Officer, Hon’ble Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar. Adding another layer of complexity, the opposition has also filed a notice of impeachment against Dhankhar. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the controversy, with its administration department seeking clarification from the Allahabad High Court regarding Justice Yadav’s statements.