The Rajya Sabha Secretariat has verified the signatures of 44 out of the 55 Members of Parliament who endorsed a notice seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Yadav for his alleged “hate speech”, while senior advocate Kapil Sibal and nine other MPs are yet to complete the verification process.

Mr. Sibal, who has vocally demanded early action on the motion, claimed he had not received any communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. However, the Secretariat has maintained that emails were sent to his official address on three occasions over the past six months.

Raising questions about the need for signature verification and the delay in processing the notice, which was submitted on December 13, 2024, Mr. Sibal said, “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.”

Also Read | Senior lawyers urge CJI to direct CBI to lodge FIR against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav

The senior advocate said that verification becomes relevant only if a signature is challenged. “The House chairman should either accept or reject the notice, not delay the process,” he said.

The notice, signed by 55 MPs, was submitted without a date and not addressed to any specific authority. Rajya Sabha sources revealed that one of the signatories, Sarfaraz Ahmed, a JMM MP from Jharkhand, had his signature appear twice on the document. Mr. Ahmed has reportedly confirmed to Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar that he signed the notice only once. The Secretariat is examining whether the duplication was due to forgery.

According to Article 124 of the Constitution, a judge can only be removed after both Houses of Parliament pass an address by a two-thirds majority, followed by Presidential assent. For initiating such a motion, at least 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha or 100 in the Lok Sabha must endorse the notice.

Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar addressed the issue during the last Parliament session, stating that signature verification was essential for procedural compliance. “Of the 55 members who signed the representation, a member’s signature appears on two occasions and the member concerned has denied his signature,” he told the House on March 21. He added, “If the number is above 50, I will proceed accordingly.”

Mr. Dhankhar urged members who had not yet responded to the second email reminder to do so promptly. “Then, the process will not be delayed at my level even for a moment,” he said.

As of now, signatures of MPs including Raghav Chadha and Sanjeev Arora (AAP), Sushmita Dev (TMC), Jose K. Mani (Kerala Congress), Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, G.C. Chandrasekhar, and Faiyaz Ahmed remain unverified, according to sources.

Senior advocate P. Chidambaram said he was shown the physical copy of the notice only recently and has now verified his signature, although the Secretariat has not yet confirmed this.

Mr. Sibal has argued that Justice Yadav should not be protected, alleging that the judge made communal remarks at a public event last year. He has also criticised the extended six-month timeline taken for verification.

The possibility of further inquiry by the Ethics Committee or Privileges Committee has not been ruled out, especially in light of the alleged forged signature on the document.

The Constitution permits Parliament to frame laws for the procedure of investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge, further underlining the importance of procedural rigour in such proceedings.