Appeal to Rashtrapati ji on advising the Parliament on Impeachment of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav to maintain the public credibility of our judicial system

Respected Rashtrapati Ji,We refer to our two letters of December 11th & 19th of 2024 appealing for your intervention under Article 86(2) of the Constitution for advising the two Houses of the Parliament to discuss the divisive remarks made by 

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav and pass a resolution on his removal from service as provided in Article 217(1)(b) (https://countercurrents.org/2024/12/justice-shekhar-kumar-yadavs-speech-at-vhp-event-appeal-to-honble-smt-droupadi-murmu-president-of-india/ & https://countercurrents.org/2024/12/appeal-torashtrapati-impeachment-of-justice-shekhar-kumar-yadav-the-only-way-to-maintain-the-public-credibility-of-our-judicial-system/#:~:text=Skip%20to%20main,English)
Meanwhile, we felt distressed at a recent news report (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-probe-on-hc-judge-dropped-after-rajya-sabha-alert-101749410048411.html) that seemed to suggest that “the Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter”. We earnestly hope that no such letter has been issued by the Rajya Sabha secretariat.

Irrespective of the above, we wish to reiterate in this connection the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at its full Court Meeting on 7th May 1997 (https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/Notice/02112020_090821.pdf), which, inter alia, laid down the following norm of conduct for judges:

“Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen to be done. The behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reaffirm the people’s faith in the impartiality of the judiciary. Accordingly, any act of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, whether in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of this perception has to be avoided”

Justice Yadav’s speech at a public function organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)(https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/who-is-justice-shekhar-kumar-yadav-how-the-judge-has-courted-controversy-in-the-past. & https://youtu.be/p_YPcDT3-IQ) raised serious concerns on his commitment to the values that the judiciary has laid down for itself and the necessity of members of the judiciary remaining totally apolitical and secular. We feel that his continuance as a judge of the High Court may erode the credibility of the judiciary as an impartial institution. We therefore feel that it calls for urgent intervention on your part as the appointing authority for High Court judges under Article 217(1).  Article 217(1)(b) prescribes the procedure for removing a judge of the High Court. Under that Article, a 

Judge of the High Court may be removed from his office by an order of the President, passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Keeping that provision in view, since the President may send a message to either House of the Parliament on any matter under Article 86(2), we appeal to you to send an appropriate message on this to both the Houses of the Parliament to discuss this matter for urgent action. We earnestly believe that such prompt action on your part will go a long way towards maintaining the credibility of our judicial system.

Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, Former Professor of IIM(A)

Dr E A S Sarma, Former Secretary to the Government of India