New Delhi: The Rajya Sabha Secretariat has confirmed that 44 out of 55 signatures on the notice to initiate the removal process of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav have been successfully verified. The motion, submitted over alleged “hate speech” made by the judge, has been marred by procedural lapses, missing details, and pending verifications – including that of senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal.
Sibal, who has been the lead signatory and a vocal advocate for prompt action on the matter, claimed he had not received any email from the Secretariat requesting signature verification. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat, however, maintains that the verification request was sent to his official email address three times in the past six months.
Sibal Disputes Verification Delay Allegation
Reacting to the delay, Kapil Sibal stated, “I have met Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar several times, and he never brought up the matter of signature verification. I am the presenter of the motion and the one who initiated the process. Yet, I was never formally asked to verify my signature.”
Sibal’s remarks suggest a disconnect between procedural expectations and communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, raising concerns over transparency in the handling of such a serious constitutional process.
Duplicate Signature Detected, Secretariat Probing Further
Further complicating the matter, the Secretariat has identified a duplicate signature on the motion—belonging to JMM MP Sarfaraz Ahmed. Sources say Ahmed met with Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar and clarified that he signed only once. The incident has prompted an internal inquiry to determine how the duplicate occurred.
Undated and Unaddressed Notice Raises Legal Concerns
According to sources, the notice submitted by the 55 MPs does not mention a date and is not addressed to any specific authority. These omissions may raise questions regarding its legal validity, as procedural correctness is crucial in initiating a judge’s removal.
Legal experts say such deficiencies could delay or even derail the process, should the motion reach the scrutiny of parliamentary procedure or judicial review.
Constitutional Provisions on Judge Removal
Under Article 217 and Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India, a High Court judge can only be removed through a parliamentary procedure involving both Houses. The motion must be passed by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in each House.
The Rajya Sabha can entertain such a motion only if it is backed by at least 50 MPs, while a motion in the Lok Sabha requires the support of 100 MPs.
What’s Next?
With pending verifications and procedural lapses, the fate of the motion remains uncertain. Opposition MPs and civil society groups are closely watching the developments, as this case could set a precedent for judicial accountability and the robustness of parliamentary procedures.
