Only Parliament can oust HC judge: VP Jagdeep Dhankhar amid impeachment call | India News

NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday made it clear that only Parliament has the jurisdiction to constitutionally remove a high court judge as he pointed out that a notice for removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad high court was pending with him.
Members of opposition parties had moved a notice in Rajya Sabha on Dec 13 for impeachment of Justice Yadav over his allegedly controversial remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad event. Those who signed the notice include Kapil Sibal, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, P Wilson, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha, Saket Gokhale, Raghav Chadha and Fauzia Khan.
The chairman also asked the RS secretary general to share with SC secretary general the information that 55 members of the RS had given a notice seeking removal of Justice Yadav under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
“Jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and the President,” Dhankhar said.
His remarks gain significance in the backdrop of SC seeking a report from Allahabad HC chief justice on Justice Yadav’s remarks and later asking him to appear before senior judges of the SC.
On December 17, the five-judge SC collegium led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna had ticked off Justice Yadav for his controversial speech and counselled him to maintain dignity of his constitutional post and exercise caution while delivering public speeches. The collegium had on Dec 10 taken note of newspaper reports of Justice Yadav’s Dec 8 speech and sought details from Allahabad HC.
The notice by MPs said Justice Yadav’s speech prima facie showed that he “engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution”. They also said the judge’s speech prima facie showed that he “targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them”.
As per the notice, Justice Yadav expressed his views in public on political matters relating to Uniform Civil Code, in violation of Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1997.