Rajya Sabha Confirms 44 MPs’ Signatures, Kapil Sibal & 9 Others Yet To Verify
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
In the move to remove Justice Shekhar Yadav, the Rajya Sabha has confirmed signatures of 44 MPs. However, Kapil Sibal and nine other parliamentarians are yet to verify their support for the motion officially.
The Rajya Sabha secretariat has confirmed the signatures of 44 out of 55 MPs who submitted a notice to initiate the removal of Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Yadav due to alleged “hate speech.”
However, Kapil Sibal and nine others have yet to verify their signatures.
Sibal, who has been advocating for prompt action on the notice, claims he has not received any communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, which has stated it sent emails to his official address three times over the past six months.
He has raised concerns about the necessity of signature verification and the delay in processing the notice, which was filed on December 13, 2024. Although 55 MPs signed the notice, one MP, Sarfaraz Ahmed, has his signature listed twice.
The Rajya Sabha Secretariat is investigating how this occurred and whether the duplicate signature is forged.
Ahmed, a JMM MP from Jharkhand, has met with Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar regarding this issue and has asserted that he signed only once. Additionally, the notice filed for Justice Yadav’s removal is undated and not addressed to anyone.
According to the Constitution, a judge can only be removed following the approval of both Houses of Parliament by a two-thirds majority of the members present. For such a motion to be introduced in the Rajya Sabha, 50 MPs must sign it, while the Lok Sabha requires 100 signatures.
Sources indicate that Sibal, a former Union minister and now an Independent MP, has not yet confirmed his signature despite receiving three reminders from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat over the past six months.
Sibal stated Media,
“I have met Chairman Dhankhar several times but he has never raised the issue of verification of my signatures on the notice for the removal of Justice Yadav as I am the presenter and initiator of the entire process,”
He emphasized that the need for signature verification arises only when someone questions the signatures on the notice and criticized the delay, urging the chairman to either accept or reject the notice without further delay.
Sibal has been quite vocal about the issue, arguing that a judge who makes communal remarks should not be shielded and calling for Justice Yadav’s removal.
He has also questioned the rationale behind the prolonged six-month verification process, noting that at least ten MPs still need to confirm their signatures. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat has sent reminders on March 7, March 13, and May 1. Chidambaram mentioned that he saw the physical document for the first time on Tuesday and has since verified his signature.
The MPs who have not yet verified their signatures include AAP’s Raghav Chadha and Sanjeev Arora, TMC’s Sushmita Dev, Kerala Congress MP Jose K Mani, Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, G C Chandrasekhar, and Faiyaz Ahmed.
Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar addressed this matter in the House during the last session, confirming that the verification process for the MPs’ representations is ongoing.
He remarked on March 21,
“I have taken all procedural steps, but I must share with you one concern that is engaging my attention. Of the 55 members, who signed the representation, a member’s signature appears on two occasions and the member concerned has denied his signature. I do not wish to get into this act which may graduate to culpability to a higher level. If the number is above 50, I will proceed accordingly. Most of the members have cooperated. Those members, who have not done so far, may please do it in response to the second mail sent to them. Then, the process will not be delayed at my level even for a moment,”
Sources from the Rajya Sabha suggest that a criminal investigation by the Ethics Committee and the Privileges Committee regarding the notice for Justice Shekhar Yadav’s removal may be possible, as the document contains “forged signatures”.
Article 124 of the Constitution states,
“A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except 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.”
It further specifies that,
“Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).”
