Opposition pushes for removal of HC judge under fire for hate speech
Fifty-five Opposition MPs gave an impeachment notice against justice Yadav over his contentious speech during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event last year.
A section of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) is set to renew its demand to impeach controversial Allahabad high court judge, justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav during the monsoon session. even as it extends in-principle support to the government’s apparent plan to remove HC judge, justice Yashwant Varma, two Opposition leaders said on Monday.
Fifty-five Opposition MPs gave an impeachment notice against justice Yadav to the Rajya Sabha on December 13, 2024 over his contentious speech during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event last year. HT reported last month that the Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into justice Yadav’s speech but dropped the plan after receiving a letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat in March that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The secretariat’s letter came after a group of opposition lawmakers submitted an impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha.
But nothing has happened since.
The government has also not given any hint that it supports justice Yadav’s removal. A top-ranking government functionary pointed out that unlike justice Yashwant Varma who is facing corruption allegations, justice Yadav is not accused of any misappropriation of assets and claimed that Yadav apologised to the apex court for his controversial remarks.
“We submitted an impeachment motion against justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad high court in December 2024. Nothing has happened. We want the government to act on it. The Rajya Sabha Chairman (Jagdeep Dhankhar) is still sitting on it,” Congress Rajya Sabha chief whip Jairam Ramesh told HT.
“55 MPs signed the notice. The government seems busy with the impeachment process of justice Verma. But why is it not acting against justice Yadav?” he asked. Opposition leaders will chalk out their strategy on how to take up the issue in its floor strategy meeting before the session begins on July 21, said Ramesh.
When asked to Trinamool’s Saket Gokhale, one of the 55 signatories to the letter, if he wants the issue to be taken up, he texted, “Why would I have signed something that I don’t want taken up?”
Another Trinamool MP said, “Kapil Sibal is leading the motion. We are completely with him.” According to a senior INDIA bloc leader, the government must clarify why it is not acting against justice Yadav. “Our notice is pending before the Rajya Sabha for seven months,” he said.
Appointed in 2019, justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026. Last week, Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said the government will soon begin collecting the signatures of lawmakers to initiate the process of justice Varma’s removal in the monsoon session that begins July 21. He said he spoke to prominent opposition parties that had “in principle” agreed to the impeachment of the former Delhi high court judge in whose residence piles of cash were allegedly recovered earlier this year.
For the removal of a sitting judge, the motion requires the signatures of 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. For the motion to pass, it has to garner the support of 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.
This means that a successful impeachment motion will need multi-party support. At an event on December 8, 2024 in Prayagraj, justice Yadav addressed the legal cell of the VHP and made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes.
The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking justice Yadav’s impeachment for “grave violation of judicial ethics.”
Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court sought a report from the Allahabad high court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned justice Yadav for a closed-door meeting.
While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad high court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns.
In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of justice Yadav’s conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration, and that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President.
Earlier this year, former CJI Khanna initiated the process for the removal of justice Varma by writing to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stating that the allegations of recovery of cash at the judge’s residence was serious and warranted initiation of proceedings for his removal under the Constitution.
On May 5, a three-member in-house enquiry committee submitted its report to the CJI confirming that cash was indeed found at the residence of justice Varma, then a sitting Delhi high court judge. This cash was kept in a storeroom where a fire broke out March 14, following which fire service officials and police, engaged in dousing the flames, discovered half-burnt currency notes stacked in a sack. The police even recorded a video of the cash .
