The Congress on Friday pressed Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar to act on a six-month-old motion seeking the impeachment of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, who has been accused of making communal remarks at a public event.

The reminder came amid sharp criticism from senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, who accused the Chair of inaction and the government of shielding the judge. “Why should signature verification take six months?” Sibal questioned, while stressing the constitutional responsibility to act without delay in such matters.

The impeachment motion, signed by 55 MPs—five more than the statutory requirement of 50 for the Rajya Sabha—was submitted on December 13, 2024. Under the procedure, the Chair must decide whether to admit the motion, following which an inquiry committee may be constituted.

Despite the lapse of six months, the motion remains pending. Sources in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat attributed the delay to ongoing verification of signatures, noting that 19–21 signatures still need to be authenticated and concerns have arisen that one MP may have signed the document twice.

Justice Yadav’s comments, delivered during a December 8 event hosted by the legal cell of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Prayagraj, triggered outrage. “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan... this country would function as per the wishes of the (majority)... This is the law,” he had said. He also reportedly made disparaging remarks about Islamic practices such as Halal and polygamy.

Leaders across party lines, including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, condemned the judge’s remarks, raising concerns about impartiality in judicial conduct.

“In a democracy, the rights of minorities are protected. How can a minority expect justice from a judge who attends VHP events and makes such statements?” Owaisi asked.

The Supreme Court swiftly responded to the controversy, asking the Allahabad High Court to submit details of the incident. On December 17, 2024, the Collegium, headed by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar, heard Justice Yadav’s explanation, in which he claimed the media had misrepresented his speech. The Collegium rejected the explanation and reprimanded him, stressing the need for judges to uphold standards of neutrality and restraint.

However, further disciplinary proceedings by the Collegium were stalled following communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, which cited the pending impeachment motion as the reason.

In January 2025, a public interest litigation was filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking to block the Rajya Sabha from acting on the impeachment motion. The PIL was dismissed on the ground that it did not raise a valid public interest issue.

Sibal contrasted the handling of this case with the swift action taken in the controversy surrounding former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, involved in a separate cash-related scandal. “This double standard raises troubling questions,” he said.

The Congress has reiterated its demand for immediate action on the motion, underscoring the gravity of the allegations and the importance of maintaining public faith in the judiciary.