KAPIL SIBAL QUESTIONS DELAY IN ACTION ON IMPEACHMENT MOTION: "IS THE GOVERNMENT SHIELDING JUSTICE SHEKHAR YADAV?":

Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha Member Kapil Sibal today raised serious concerns over the inaction of Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar regarding the impeachment motion filed against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. The motion was brought forward in response to allegations that Justice Yadav made communal and hate-filled remarks from the bench.

Addressing a press conference following a report in the Hindustan Times, Sibal highlighted that the Supreme Court had reportedly refrained from initiating an in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav—similar to the one it had commenced in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma—after receiving a letter from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat stating that the matter was already under its consideration.

Sibal criticized what he called a deliberate inaction by the Rajya Sabha Chairperson, alleging that by failing to act on the impeachment motion, he not only delayed parliamentary scrutiny but also effectively blocked the Supreme Court from taking disciplinary measures. According to Sibal, this sequence of events suggests a disturbing possibility that institutional processes are being manipulated to shield a sitting judge from accountability.

"This is according to me very unfortunate and in fact, it smacks of discrimination for if, this is your case that having found out in the public domain that an in-house procedure was going on and since a petition was pending before you for impeachment, the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha decided to write and inform the Chief Justice of India that the motion is pending, and therefore, you shouldn't go forward with the in-house procedure. Whereas, we all know that the in-house procedure has nothing to do with the impeachment motion. That impeachment motion has not even been admitted so far. We filed the impeachment motion on December 13, 2024, and we are in June 2025, six months have passed, and the secretariat has not yet verified 55 signatures. How long does that take?" Sibal questioned.

Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has further alleged that the Central Government appears to be actively protecting Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, who is scheduled to retire in early 2026. During a press conference, Sibal questioned the prolonged inaction of Rajya Sabha Chairman and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on the impeachment motion pending against Justice Yadav. Despite the motion being supported by 55 Members of Parliament—exceeding the constitutional requirement of 50 signatories, no step has been taken on it for over six months. Sibal raised serious concerns over this delay, especially given Dhankhar’s constitutional responsibility to process such motions with due diligence and impartiality.

Sibal recounted a sequence of troubling events involving Justice Yadav, which had already drawn the attention of the Supreme Court. He noted that Justice Yadav had previously delivered a speech within the premises of the Allahabad High Court at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event an act that raised eyebrows due to the judge’s alleged communal remarks during the address. The Supreme Court reportedly took serious note of this incident and summoned Justice Yadav to provide an explanation. Simultaneously, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court was asked to submit a report on the matter, which, according to Sibal’s information, was not favorable to Justice Yadav.

Despite these developments, Sibal pointed out, Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar made a statement on February 13, 2025, claiming that the matter would be handled by Parliament and therefore there was no need for the Supreme Court to pursue an in-house inquiry. Sibal strongly contested this stance, clarifying that the in-house procedure is entirely separate from the impeachment process. According to him, the in-house mechanism, initiated by the Chief Justice of India, exists to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether a judge has failed in upholding their constitutional duties and whether formal proceedings should follow. In Justice Yadav’s case, Sibal argued that the purpose of such a procedure would have been to assess whether his allegedly communal statements were appropriate for someone holding judicial office, and whether he could be deemed fit to continue as a judge. If the Government disagreed with the in-house mechanism, Sibal said, there were legitimate and formal ways to object—but bypassing or obstructing the process altogether was deeply problematic.