Shortly after his controversial speech in December 2024, calls were made for the removal of the Allahabad High Court's Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. However, with less than eight months left for the judge to retire, there appears to be no traction on the move to impeach him.
The judge had made a series of controversial remarks during his speech at an event organised by the legal cell of Hindu right-wing organisation Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). These include the use of the term "kathmullah", a derogatory slur against Muslims.
In his lecture on the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Yadav asserted that India will operate according to the wishes of the majority population.
“I have no hesitation in stating that this is Hindustan, and this country will function according to the wishes of the majority living here. This is the law. It is not about speaking as a High Court Judge; rather, the law operates in accordance with the bahusankyak (majority). Consider this in the context of a family or society – only what ensures the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted,” he said during the speech.
His remarks against the minority community sparked widespread outrage, with many calling for his removal, citing conduct unbecoming of a judge.
The delay in action against the judge appears to have already sealed the outcome. With Justice Yadav set to retire in April 2026, there seems to be little to no movement toward taking this motion seriously.
The first push for holding the judge to account for his remarks came on December 10, when Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal announced that an impeachment motion would be moved against Justice Yadav.
Within three days, 55 MPs reportedly signed the motion alleging that Justice Yadav's remarks amounted to hate speech and incitement of communal disharmony.
The motion further claimed that Justice Yadav has demonstrated bias and prejudice against minorities through his remarks, specifically targeting these communities.
Lok Sabha MP from Srinagar Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi had also tweeted that he was moving an impeachment motion for the removal of Justice Yadav.
Under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, once a removal motion is signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, the Speaker or the Chairman may admit or reject it after due consideration.
If admitted, the Speaker/Chairman must form a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist to investigate the charges.
The committee frames specific charges, communicates them to the judge and allows a written defence. Further, the committee may amend charges if needed, and the Central government may appoint an advocate to conduct the case.
However, after almost 5 months, in June this year, multiple reports indicated that the impeachment motion filed by the opposition against Justice Yadav had been stalled in Parliament due to procedural technicalities (here, here).
Media reports said that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat began verifying the 55 signatures submitted with the motion. Any discrepancies, such as duplicates or format errors, may also lead to the motion’s rejection on technical grounds.
According to the Indian Express, as of June 24, only 44 MPs confirmed their signatures to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat through phone or email.
Thereafter, in a press conference held the same month, Sibal had alleged that there was an attempt to delay the admission of the impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Yadav, so that he retires action free.
Bar & Bench contacted Mehdi’s office, which clarified that the signature verification had already been completed at the time and was duly submitted in Parliament. Since then, they have not received any communication regarding the next steps in the process.
Parliament has yet to confirm whether or not the remaining signatures have been verified. And with no Rajya Sabha Chairman currently in office following the retirement of Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, even if the signatures are verified, there is no one to take the process further.
As a result, the removal process appears to have been stalled.
While MPs were in the process of moving an impeachment motion, the Supreme Court also took note of Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks.
Sources had informed the Bar & Bench on December 15 that, on its administrative side, the apex court had sought details and particulars from the High Court in this regard.
Later, in January 2025, 13 Senior Advocates wrote to then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna urging him to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a first information report (FIR) against Justice Yadav.
The letter was signed by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Aspi Chinoy, Navroz Seervai, Anand Grover, Chander Uday Singh, Jaideep Gupta, Mohan V Katarki, Shoeb Alam, R Vaigai, Mihir Desai, Jayant Bhushan and others.
Pertinently, the letter had referred to a report in The Indian Express as per which Justice Yadav said that he stood by his remarks and defended them.
In light of the same, the senior lawyers had stated that action should be taken against the judge for offences outlined under Sections 196 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) since the speech hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims and promoted enmity between religious groups.
On February 1, a day after his retirement from the Supreme Court, Justice Hrishikesh Roy told the media that CJI Khanna had initiated an in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav.
Justice Roy, who was then part of the Supreme Collegium, revealed that Justice Yadav was ready to apologise to the judges in private after he was summoned by the judicial appointments body. The Collegium insisted that the apology has to be public, which the judge agreed to. However, he apparently had a change of heart and refused to do so. Since the apology never came through, the CJI had started an in-house inquiry, Justice Roy had revealed.
However, in June this year, reports suggested that the Supreme Court dropped the plan after receiving a categorical communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, which asserted that the matter fell within its exclusive jurisdiction.
As per media reports, then CJI Khanna had initiated the process to examine whether the judge’s conduct required scrutiny, following an adverse report from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
The move was halted after a March communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat clarified that the constitutional mandate for such proceedings rests exclusively with the Rajya Sabha Chairman and, ultimately, with Parliament and the President.
Compare this with the case of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who found himself in the dock after a fire at his Delhi residence led to the discovery of unaccounted cash.
Within just eight days of the incident, then CJI Khanna swung into action, and set up a three-member in-house inquiry on March 22.
In less than four months, the in-house committee indicted Justice Varma, the Lok Sabha admitted an impeachment motion signed by 146 MPs and a statutory panel was constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to probe the matter further.
The swiftness with which the entire institutional machinery moved against Justice Varma stands in stark contrast to the deafening silence in Justice Shekhar Yadav’s case, where, despite video evidence of his communal and hate-laden remarks, no concrete step has ever been taken under the in-house mechanism.
Soon after MPs moved the impeachment motion and then CJI Sanjiv Khanna sought a report on Justice Yadav’s speech, the Allahabad High Court announced a roster change on December 12, 2024.
With effect from December 16, Justice Yadav was restricted to hearing only first appeals arising from district court orders. Since October 15, 2024, he had been entrusted with bail matters, including sensitive cases of sexual offences.
However, data published on the High Court’s website in February 2025 shows that bail matters were re-assigned to him, and to this day, he continues to be entrusted with criminal appeals and bail cases.
This raises questions on whether the administrative measure was merely symbolic.
The Justice Yadav episode exposes the inherent weaknesses of India’s judicial accountability mechanisms.
In Parliament, the impeachment motion has stalled at the signature-verification stage, with procedural opacity and unexplained delays.
An in-house inquiry was initiated by the Collegium, but abandoned for reasons that remain unclear.
At the High Court level, an administrative reshuffle was undone within weeks, undermining its credibility.
With barely eight months left before Justice Yadav’s retirement, it is almost certain that the clock will run out before any institution acts. This case highlights a hard truth - that when time is on a judge’s side, accountability mechanisms layered with delay, opacity and institutional hesitancy become ineffective.