Accusing Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of engaging in “hate speech” and “incitement to communal disharmony” in violation of the Constitution, as many as 55 Opposition MPs from the Rajya Sabha on Friday gave a notice for moving a motion to impeach him. Those who have signed the motion initiated by Independent MP Kapil Sibal include the Congress’s P Chidambaram, Digvijaya Singh, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, and Randeep Singh Surjewala; AAP’s Sanjay Singh and Raghav Chadha; TMC’s Saket Gokhale and Sagarika Ghose; RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha; SP’s Javed Ali Khan; CPI(M)’s John Brittas; and the CPI’s Sandosh Kumar. The Opposition move came in the wake of Justice Yadav’s remarks about Muslims at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) last week. In the petition, the MPs are learnt to have made three accusations: that Justice Yadav has engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution, targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them; and entered into “public debate or expressed his views in public on political matters relating to Uniform Civil Code in violation of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life - 1997”. They are learnt to have said that the judge’s actions contravene the Directive Principles enshrined in Article 51A(e) of the Constitution that mandate promoting harmony and renouncing practices derogatory to the dignity of individuals. The statements, they are learnt to have said, encouraged animosity and division among different religious and communal groups, contravening the secular ethos of the Constitution. Quoting the remarks Justice Yadav made, the MPs are learnt to have argued that the important facet of the three pillars of Indian democracy was that they do not collide with each other. As such, they are learnt to have said that there is no ground for sitting judges of the High Courts to affiliate with “extremist groups” or parties. They are said to have argued that no litigant can hope for justice in a court in which a member holds such a “biased, prejudiced, publicly expressed opinion against the minority community and in favour of a majoritarian approach.” The notice seeks initiation of proceedings for the impeachment of Justice Yadav under section 3 (1) (B) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act read with Article 124 (4) and Article 124 (5) of the Constitution. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge has to be made through a resolution signed at least by 100 members if moved in Lok Sabha and by 50 MPs if initiated in Rajya Sabha. The MPs in their petition attached video clips and transcripts of Justice Yadav’s speech along with links to news articles on it. What will happen next Once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. If accepted, a three-member committee, comprising two judges and a jurist, will be constituted to probe the complaint and determine if it is a case fit for initiating the process of impeachment. The committee includes one judge from the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of a High Court if the complaint is against a High Court judge, or two Supreme Court judges if the complaint is against a sitting judge of the apex court. As Article 124 (4) of the Constitution says, the motion for impeachment “has to be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting” — in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Given the majority enjoyed by the NDA in both Houses, the motion of impeachment is unlikely to clear either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. The INDIA bloc has only 85 MPs in the Upper House while the NDA has 113 MPs and can count on the support of six more nominated members. So far there have been four attempts to impeach High Court judges and two to remove Supreme Court judges, with the last being in 2018 against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. None of the motions cleared the entire process. What the judge said Addressing an event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on the Allahabad High Court premises on Sunday, Justice Yadav, while backing the Uniform Civil Code, targeted Muslims and said, “You have a misconception that if a law (UCC) is brought in, it will be against your Shariyat, your Islam and your Quran… But I want to say one more thing… whether it is your personal law, our Hindu law, your Quran or whether it is our Gita, as I said we have addressed the ills (buraaiyan) in our practices… kamiyan thi durust kar liye hai (the shortcomings have been addressed) …untouchability… sati, jauhar… female foeticide…we have addressed all those issues… Then why are you not doing away with his law… that while your first wife is there.you can have three wives… without her consent… that is not acceptable.” He then went on to say, “It is taught to us that even a small animal should not be killed. Even an ant should not be killed. That is perhaps why we are tolerant and generous. Hame kisi ka kasht dekh karke kasht hota hai… kisike peeda ko dekhke peeda hota hai… par aapke andar nahin hoti hai… Why? Because when a child is born in our community, they are taught about God, the Vedas and Mantras right from the childhood… they are told about non-violence… lekin aap ke yahan toh bachpan se bache ko saamne rakh kar ke vadh kiya jaat hai pashuon ka (in your community, animals are slaughtered in the presence of children)… toh aap kaise apeksha karte hain ki sahishnu hoga woh… udaar hoga woh (how do you expect the person to become tolerant, generous).” Justice Yadav said, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan… and the country will run according to the majority who live in Hindustan.” He said the “law will operate on the will of the majority… if you look at families or the society… the will of the majority prevails”. He said that “the people who we are talking about… all of them are not bad… Not all of them are bad and the ills that I am talking about… they are not in favour of four wives, they are not in favour of triple talaq, they are not in favour of female foeticide… Lekin jo … (derogatory remark). kyunoki woh desh ke liye ghatak hai (dangerous to the country). Janata ko bhadkane wale log hain, desh aage na bade is prakar ke log hain (those who incite people, who do not want the country to progress) … unse sawdhan rahne ki zaroorat hai (need to be on guard against them)".
