Fifty-five Opposition MPs on Friday gave a notice in the Rajya Sabha for a motion to impeach Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for his anti-Muslim remarks at an event organised by the Hindutva organisation Vishwa Hindu Parishad, The Indian Express reported.

The 21-page motion, initiated by Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, said that the judge’s speech at the event on Sunday “prima facie [showed] evidence [he] has targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against minorities”, NDTV reported.

The notice sought the impeachment of Yadav for “hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony”. It described the judge’s statements as “outrageous, derogatory, and hateful”.

Legislators who signed the motion included Congress MPs Chidambaram and Digvijaya Singh, Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha, Trinamool Congress MPs Sagarika Ghose and Saket Gokhale, Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Jha and Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP John Brittas.

At the Vishwa Hindu Parishad event on Sunday, Yadav said that India would be run as per the wishes of its Hindu majority. He also uttered a slur used for Muslims who have been circumcised and described the community as “harmful to the country”.

“They are the kind of people who do not want the country to progress and we need to be cautious of them,” Yadav said. He added that India would soon adopt a Uniform Civil Code – a common set of laws governing marriage, divorce, succession and adoption for all citizens.

Critics have questioned the appropriateness of the Allahabad High Court allowing a programme by a Hindutva organisation on its premises and the decision of a sitting judge to participate. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court also sought a report from the Allahabad High Court on the remarks.

The Opposition MPs, in the impeachment motion on Friday, said that Yadav crossed a line by “expressing his views on political matters in a public space”, adding that this was an “egregious violation”, according to NDTV.

“There is no ground for sitting judges of the High Courts to affiliate with extremist groups or parties,” the impeachment motion said. “No litigant can hope for justice in a court in which a member holds such a biased, prejudiced, publicly expressed opinion against the minority community and in favour of majoritarian approach.”

The motion also referred to a statement made by the Supreme Court in the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life”, which was a code on judicial ethics adopted by it 1997. As per the code, a judge “shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters, or on matters that are pending, or are likely to arise for judicial determination”.

The notice sought the initiation of proceedings for Yadav’s impeachment under Section 3 (1)(B) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act read with Article 124(4) and Article 124(5) of the Constitution, The Indian Express reported.

Section 3(1)(B) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act details the process for investigating a judge’s misbehaviour or incapacity. Article 124(4) states that a Supreme Court judge can only be removed from office by an order from the president.

Article 124(5) notes that Parliament can regulate the process for presenting an address to the president regarding the removal of a Supreme Court judge for misbehaviour or incapacity.

A motion for removal in the Lok Sabha requires the signatures of at least 100 MPs. If in the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 MPs must sign. The Speaker or Chairperson of the House decides whether to admit or reject the motion.

If admitted, the matter is referred to a judicial committee for investigation. Based on the committee’s findings, Parliament debates and votes on the motion. The motion must secure a two-thirds majority in both Houses. Upon approval, Parliament advises the President to remove the judge from office.

Scroll looked at several of Yadav’s orders over the last three-and-a-half years and found that the judge has a pattern of referring to Hindutva talking points. In his judgements, he has suggested that the state should honour the cow as well as Hindu gods, referred to conspiracy theories about religious conversions and accused people of making false complaints under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act.

In Sunday’s speech, Yadav claimed that children from “one community”, implying Hindus, are taught values like compassion and non-violence, while those from “another community”, implying Muslims, were exposed to animal slaughter and lack tolerance.

Videos of his speech were widely circulated on social media, prompting strong reactions from Opposition parties, which described the statements as “hate speech”.

Also read: What legal options are available to penalise judge who made anti-Muslim remarks at VHP event?