E-Paper
Motion to impeach justice Yadav stalled due to forged signature: Dhankhar
A motion for the removal of a judge has to be signed by not less than 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. Dhankar said that the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have received the requisite numbers
Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday informed the House about an ongoing enquiry related to an alleged forged signature in a motion for the removal of justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad high court, suggesting that this was the reason for the hold-up in a process initiated in December. His comments came hours before he unexpectedly resigned as Vice President.
Addressing the House, he said, “In December, a motion under Article 124 was submitted for my consideration for removal of a judge of the high court of Allahabad. That motion was purportedly from 55 members. I examined that and found one particular member has signed at two places. The result was the representation of the motion indicating 55 members seeking removal, but, actually it was only 54 and not 55.”
The notice was submitted by the MPs on December 13, 2024, after a controversial speech by the judge at a VHP event was widely criticised for promoting hate speech and majoritarian rhetoric. A motion for the removal of a judge has to be signed by not less than 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. Dhankar said that the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have received the requisite numbers.
He said that an enquiry was conducted about the second signature. “The honourable member declined his second signature. That made the matter a little more serious, because it was required of me to get to the bottom and find out whether the representation merited consideration. The process was initiated for verification of signatures and authentication. That process is in progress. I will get a full update and come back to the House. If a motion carries two signatures of the same member and the honourable members declines by saying it was signed at only one place and not two, then the matter becomes serious and culpable.”
Dhankhar said that the Rajya Sabha has to set high standards and live up to the expectations of the people. “If we do not live up to the highest expectations of the people, then we’ll be putting things under the carpet and not subjecting them to deep investigation. I will discuss with the floor leaders as to the steps that this House needs to take with respect to such kinds of transgressions.” he said.
Opposition MPs have complained about the delay in acting on a notice by the parliamentarians calling for an impeachment motion against the judge.
On December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes.
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 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 “consistent with constitutional values”. Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026.
People cited above said that the then CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad high court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But, 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.
The letter followed Dhankar’s comments in Parliament.
In February, he said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter
“The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,” he said in Parliament on February 13.
On Monday, Dhankar also spoke about the recovery of ₹500 notes from the seat allotted to a member in the House. The Rajya Sabha Chairman said that no member had come forward to claim ownership of the notes. “I must also inform the House that there was an occasion in this house where on seat number 222, a pad of ₹500 notes was found. What is more surprising is and is deeply concerning is not that a pad of notes was found but no one has owned it. No one has claimed it. This is quite serious . I had asked authorities to get into the matter seriously, but, it appears now that the matter will have to be dealt with. And that too I will put before the floor leaders for further consideration and guidance,” he said.
On December 6, Dhankhar had informed the House that during a routine anti-sabotage check the previous day, security personnel had found a wad of currency notes on a seat number 222, allotted to Congress MP and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Singhvi has denied any involvement, terming the situation “bizarre”.
