In a sharp and detailed press conference held on June 10, Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal launched a scathing critique of Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar for failing to act on an impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court — over six months after the motion was submitted by Opposition MPs. Sibal accused Dhankhar of not only obstructing the process but also derailing the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry into the judge’s conduct, calling the situation discriminatory and constitutionally untenable.
Hindustan Times report triggers response
Sibal’s comments came in the wake of a June 9 Hindustan Times report which revealed that the Supreme Court had initiated preparations for an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav — who allegedly made communal and Islamophobic remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in December 2023 — but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Sources cited in the report claimed that then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had begun preliminary steps based on an adverse report from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, but halted the process following a letter from the Secretariat claiming that the matter was already under parliamentary consideration.
Sibal: “This is discriminatory and constitutionally perverse”
Sibal minced no words in calling out what he viewed as an institutional derailment of accountability. “This is very unfortunate and smacks of discrimination,” Sibal said during the press conference. “The in-house procedure has nothing to do with the impeachment motion. It’s an internal judicial process initiated by the Chief Justice of India to assess whether allegations warrant further action. By informing the Supreme Court that the motion was pending in the Rajya Sabha — despite it not even being admitted — the Chairman effectively paralysed the judiciary’s internal scrutiny mechanism.”
He reminded the public that the impeachment motion was submitted on December 13, 2024, bearing 55 signatures — more than the required 50 under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Yet, he noted, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat has still not completed signature verification, nearly six months later.
“How long does it take to verify 55 signatures?” he asked. “Why is this process being deliberately delayed? Is the government trying to protect Justice Yadav, who is set to retire in early 2026?”
On Justice Yadav’s speech and Supreme Court’s role
Justice Yadav’s speech, delivered on December 8, 2023, at a VHP event, stirred nationwide controversy. During the speech, Justice Yadav declared that “this is Hindustan” and that the country must run according to the majority, while endorsing the Uniform Civil Code and making derogatory comparisons between Hindu and Muslim personal laws. His statements were widely seen as communal in nature. (Detailed report may be read here and here.)
Sibal pointed out that the Supreme Court had taken note of the speech and sought an explanation from Justice Yadav. The Allahabad High Court Chief Justice reportedly submitted a negative report, further warranting an in-house investigation. However, Sibal noted that after Rajya Sabha Chairperson Dhankhar told Parliament on February 13, 2025, that the matter should be left to Parliament, the Supreme Court backed off.
“This subversion of the in-house procedure — which exists precisely to safeguard constitutional standards in the judiciary — is deeply concerning,” said Sibal. “It shows that the Government and Parliament are stifling independent judicial mechanisms.”
Impeachment panel may be formed
A June 10 Indian Express report suggested that Rajya Sabha Chairman may now be considering constituting a committee to examine the charges against Justice Yadav. The report confirms that the signature verification process is still ongoing, and that one signature was duplicated due to a clerical error — though Opposition sources, according to the report, insist that the requisite number remains intact.
Dhankhar had earlier stated in Parliament on March 21 that two rounds of emails were sent to MPs for signature verification. “One member denied having signed, and his name appears twice,” Dhankhar had said, implying that further scrutiny was needed.
Opposition sources. According to the IE report, explained that multiple sets of representation papers had been prepared and circulated for the motion, and the duplication was a result of confusion — not fraud. “Even if one signature is invalid, there are still more than 50 valid ones. The threshold is met,” a source said.
Sibal warns against using in-house procedure to remove Justice Yashwant Varma
In an important aside, Sibal also raised serious concerns about reports that the Government is trying to remove Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma using the findings of an in-house committee report, without invoking the Judges (Inquiry) Act. “If that is true, it’s completely unconstitutional. The in-house report is meant only for the CJI, not for executive action or removal proceedings,” he warned.
“This sets a dangerous precedent. If judges can be removed on the basis of in-house reports alone, judicial independence is in grave peril. There’s a constitutional process under Article 124 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Skipping that is a clear overreach by the executive,” Sibal asserted.
Targeting judiciary, shielding allies?
Sibal also took aim at Vice President Dhankhar’s selective outrage, referring to his recent criticism of the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 in the Tamil Nadu Governor-Bill Assent matter. Dhankhar had accused the Supreme Court of treating Article 142 like a “nuclear missile” and questioned whether timelines could be imposed on constitutional authorities like the President and Governors.
“Today, we are talking about the same thing,” Sibal retorted. “No Court can force the Chairman to admit an impeachment motion within a certain timeline — but equally, the Chairman cannot use that discretion to permanently stall a constitutional process. Six months have passed without even verifying signatures. Is this constitutional silence — or constitutional sabotage?”
Legal and constitutional context
Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a Supreme Court judge can be removed for “proved misbehavior or incapacity” following a parliamentary inquiry and approval by a two-thirds majority in both Houses. The same provision applies to High Court judges via Article 218.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 sets out the procedure: at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs must submit a notice for impeachment. Upon prima facie satisfaction, the Chairman/Speaker constitutes a three-member inquiry committee.
Sibal emphasised that the in-house mechanism developed by the Supreme Court is entirely independent of this process — it is an internal ethical accountability measure, not a substitute for impeachment, nor subordinate to Parliament.
Conclusion
Sibal’s remarks underscore deep concerns about political interference in judicial accountability mechanisms and what appears to be deliberate inertia in processing a serious impeachment motion. As Parliament prepares for the Monsoon Session on July 21, all eyes will be on whether Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar finally takes forward the motion — or continues to allow what Sibal has described as a “dangerous constitutional standstill” to persist.
Related:
SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims