The Indian political landscape is currently witnessing a complex dance of accusations and counter-accusations surrounding the potential impeachment of two High Court judges: Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Shekhar Yadav. The ruling government's push to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma, following allegations of corruption, is being met with scrutiny and strategic maneuvering by the opposition Congress party, who are linking the issue to the delayed action on Justice Yadav, who faces allegations of hate speech.
The crux of the matter lies in the divergent approaches being taken in the two cases. Justice Varma is under a cloud of suspicion after a significant amount of unaccounted cash was allegedly discovered at his residence. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju stated the government intends to collect signatures from lawmakers to begin the impeachment process during the monsoon session, which commences on July 21st. He also indicated that he has spoken with prominent opposition parties who have, "in principle," agreed to the impeachment.
However, Congress is questioning the legal basis and the government's intentions regarding Justice Varma. Congress MP Vivek Tankha cautioned against using the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry report as the foundation for impeachment proceedings, emphasizing that due process under the Judges Inquiry Act is mandatory. Senior lawyer and Congress MP Kapil Sibal argued that the Supreme Court's inquiry holds "no constitutional relevance" and that an investigation can only occur under the Judges Inquiry Act. He also pointed out that, as per the Constitution, the motion for impeachment should be brought by members of Parliament, not the government.
Simultaneously, the opposition is escalating its demand for action against Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, who is accused of delivering a controversial speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in December 2024. Fifty-five opposition MPs submitted an impeachment notice against Justice Yadav on December 13, 2024, citing his speech as targeting a particular religious group. Despite this, no action has been taken by the Rajya Sabha or the government. The Supreme Court had even dropped plans for an internal inquiry after the Rajya Sabha secretariat asserted its exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.
The Congress party is now accusing the government of deliberately delaying the impeachment notice against Justice Yadav, potentially to allow him to retire without facing any consequences. Sibal has questioned the Rajya Sabha Secretariat's attempts to verify the signatures of the 55 MPs who signed the impeachment notice, alleging unnecessary delays. Congress leaders are questioning why the government is acting swiftly in Justice Varma's case while dragging its feet on Justice Yadav's.
The opposition's strategy appears to be two-fold: to ensure due process is followed in Justice Varma's case and to highlight what they perceive as the government's selective action based on political considerations. They aim to portray the government as being overly zealous in pursuing Justice Varma while protecting Justice Yadav. This stance allows them to raise questions about the government's commitment to impartiality and the rule of law.
The success of any impeachment motion requires the support of a majority of the total membership of each House, as well as a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. This necessitates cross-party consensus, making the political dynamics and negotiations crucial in determining the fate of both judges. As the monsoon session approaches, the impeachment proceedings promise to be a contentious battleground, testing the strength of alliances and exposing the fault lines in Indian politics.
