The Treasury and Opposition benches on Monday displayed rare unity in submitting a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Verma, as recommended by a Supreme Court-appointed panel.

However, the Opposition submitted a similar notice to Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar, too, complicating matters.

Piles of partially burnt cash were found in May at the Delhi residence of the high court judge.

Some 152 Lok Sabha MPs signed the impeachment notice, minister of state for law (independent charge) Arjun Ram Meghwal said.

Sources said that apart from NDA members, the signatories included Opposition leaders such as Rahul Gandhi and K.C. Venugopal (Congress), T.R. Baalu (DMK) and Supriya Sule (Sharad Pawar’s NCP).

One hundred signatures are necessary to move such a motion in the Lok Sabha, and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. It can be introduced in either House but must be adopted by both Houses.

Dhankhar acknowledged receiving such a notice signed by more than 50 members (Congress member Jairam Ramesh tweeted that the number was 63). He added that he had been informed about a similar notice being moved in the Lok Sabha.

“The rules have it that the House where the motion is presented first (takes it) up for consideration while the other one loses jurisdiction. But if the motion is presented in both Houses (on) the same day, the provisions are different,” Dhankhar said.

“Then the right of the Speaker or the Chairman to admit or reject the motion is not there. The motion becomes the property of the House.”

The problem is, the requisite inquiry committee of judges cannot be formed unless the motion has been admitted.

Dhankhar said the House secretary-general needed to examine and sort the
matter out.

Stalled impeachment

Ramesh tweeted that a notice submitted by the Opposition for the removal of another judge, Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad High Court, to the Rajya Sabha Chairman “way back on Dec 13, 2024” was still hanging fire.

Justice Yadav had said the law should work the way the majority wanted, made controversial remarks about Muslims and endorsed a uniform civil code at a VHP event in Allahabad. He was summoned before the Supreme
Court collegium.

Dhankhar referred to the notice against Justice Yadav and flagged a defect with it. He told the House the notice carried a particular MP’s signature twice but on being asked, he had claimed not to have signed it at all.

“Since the honourable member has declined his signature, a process of verification of signature and authentication is under process,” Dhankhar said, adding that he would get back to the House on the matter.