The impeachment notice by 54 Rajya Sabha MPs against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav—over his controversial remark at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event last year, where he said, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan… and the country will run according to the majority who live in Hindustan”—has been confirmed to bear at least 50 valid signatures, meeting the minimum required to move the process forward.
According to an Indian Express report, so far only 44 of the MPs who signed the impeachment notice against Justice Yadav have verified their signatures, after the Rajya Sabha Secretariat sought confirmation through emails and calls in March and May this year.
This follows the Secretariat’s detection of a mismatch in nine signatures compared to official records, and one MP, Sarfaraz Ahmed, had his signature appear twice.
A total of 54 MPs submitted the notice in December last year. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a minimum of 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs is required to move a motion for a judge’s impeachment.
Sources said the notice has not been rejected by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, as the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, does not prescribe any specific timeframe for deciding on such a notice.
Among the 11 MPs who had not authenticated their signatures as of May 23 were Kapil Sibal, P. Chidambaram, Sushmita Dev, Sanjeev Arora, Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, Jose K. Mani, Faiyaz Ahmed, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, G. C. Chandrasekhar, Raghav Chadha, and N. R. Elango.
Some said they had not been contacted or were unaware of the email, while others assured they would verify soon.
When contacted by The Indian Express, Kapil Sibal said he had met the Chairman several times and was never asked about his signature. He added that he did not know which email ID the communication was sent to and pointed out that he was the one who had presented the notice with the signatures.
Sibal also said that if the Chairman is unable to confirm the signatures, he should reject the notice so that they can approach the Supreme Court.
P. Chidambaram confirmed that he had signed the notice but denied being contacted by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat for verification.
Among those yet to authenticate their signatures, Jose K. Mani said he would verify soon, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya assured he would write to confirm, Sushmita Dev stated she had signed with other MPs, Sanjeev Arora cited preoccupation with the Ludhiana West by-election, and Raghav Chadha is learnt to have sought a meeting with the Chairman for clarification.
The Opposition MPs had submitted the impeachment notice on December 13 with 55 signatures, handed over by Sibal, Vivek Tankha, and K. T. S. Tulsi.
The 21-page motion, initiated by Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, stated that the judge’s speech “prima facie [showed] evidence [that he] has targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against minorities.”
On February 13, Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar informed the Rajya Sabha that he had received “55 purported signatures” on a notice seeking the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
He stated that “the jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies exclusively with the Chairman, Rajya Sabha and, in eventuality, with the Parliament and Honorable President.” Rajya Sabha Secretary General P. C. Mody subsequently conveyed these remarks to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court on February 17 “for information.”
According to Rajya Sabha sources, the Secretariat detected a mismatch in nine signatures compared to official records, and one MP, Sarfaraz Ahmed, had his signature appear twice; he reportedly clarified he had signed only once, bringing the valid total to 54.
In response, the Secretariat sent emails on March 7, March 13, and May 1, requesting the MPs to meet the Chairman with authenticated documents, asking them to “make it convenient to have an interaction with the Chairman, Rajya Sabha.”
Justice Yadav sparked controversy with a 34-minute-long speech during the December 8 VHP event held at the Allahabad High Court Bar Association’s library. The speech went viral, as he made several references to the “ills” in Muslim society, claiming Muslim children could not be expected to be “tolerant” and “generous” as they are exposed to violence and “the slaughter of animals” from an early stage.
During a lecture on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Justice Yadav declared that India would function only as per the wishes of the “bahusankhyak” (majority), whose authority must prevail.
He also used the derogatory term “kathmulla” to describe a section of Muslims who, he claimed, engaged in practices such as having four wives and triple talaq, describing them as “fatal” to the nation.
The speech has created massive outrage among both civil society and lawyers, with many organisations writing letters to the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna.
Recently in June, the All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ) raised alarm over the Supreme Court’s decision not to initiate an in-house inquiry against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
