The full court meet was called to discuss the issue of designating retired judges of the High Court as senior advocates. However, the CJI is learnt to have brought up the issue of Justice Yadav. “It is very much an ongoing issue and no decision has been made. The full court was just told that the meeting had taken place,” a source said.

Another source said that at the meeting Tuesday, the Collegium had told Justice Yadav that a public apology on record was needed to put the issue to rest. But he wanted to clarify from a public platform at a future date that his remarks had not been taken in the proper spirit.

Notably, it is now learnt that the Collegium will wait for a few days before deliberating on the next steps. The CJI is meanwhile in the process of discussing the issue with the full court is seen by those in the judicial circles as an indication of the Collegium’s seriousness of the issue and an attempt to “take the court into confidence” on the next steps.

What the Collegium can do is either transfer the judge or initiate an in-house inquiry. The process of an in-house inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act is a precursor to recommending the judge’s removal to the President.

It was while addressing an event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on December 8 on the premises of the Allahabad High Court, that Justice Yadav had targeted Muslims and framed the Uniform Civil Code as a Hindu versus Muslim debate where the former had brought in reforms while the latter had not.

“You have a misconception that if a law (UCC) is brought in, it will be against your Shariyat, your Islam and your Quran,” Justice Yadav said. “But I want to say one more thing… whether it is your personal law, our Hindu law, your Quran or whether it is our Gita, as I said we have addressed the ills (buraaiyan) in our practices… kamiyan thi, durust kar liye hain (the shortcomings have been addressed) …untouchability… sati, jauhar… female foeticide…we have addressed all those issues… Then why are you not doing away with this law… that while your first wife is there…you can have three wives… without her consent… that is not acceptable.”

Justice Yadav went on to say that Hinduism had the seeds of tolerance which Islam didn’t. He also said, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan… and the country will run according to the majority who live in Hindustan.”

Related:

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims

Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches

The post CJI Khanna apprises full court of SC on Collegium meeting with Justice Yadav appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Of the 85 opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha, sources have told the media that 36 Opposition MPs cutting across parties have already signed the petition, initiated by Independent Rajya Sabha MP and lawyer Kapil Sibal. The Opposition was, in all likelihood, going to move it on Thursday after organising more signatures. The INDIA bloc needs 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha to be able to move it.

Among those who have already signed include the Congress’s Digvijaya Singh, Jairam Ramesh and Vivek Tankha; the Aam Aadmi Party’s Sanjay Singh; the Trinamool Congress’s Saket Gokhale and Sagarika Ghose; the RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha; the Samajwadi Party’s Javed Ali Khan; the CPI(M)’s John Brittas; and the CPI’s Sandosh Kumar.

In the notice, that lays downs the grounds for impeachment, initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav under Section 3(1)(B) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act read with Articles 124(4) and 124 (5) of the Constitution has been demanded. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge has to be made through a resolution signed at least by 100 members if moved in the Lok Sabha and by 50 MPs if initiated in the Rajya Sabha.

Apart from a written text, the INDIA Alliance will, reportedly attach video clips and transcripts of Justice Yadav’s controversial speech along with links of news articles on the same. Procedurally, once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. If accepted, a three-member committee comprising two judges and a jurist is constituted to probe the complaint and determine if it is a case fit for initiating the process of impeachment.

The committee normally includes one judge from the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of a High Court if the complaint is against a High Court judge, or two Supreme Court judges if the complaint is against a sitting judge of the apex court.

Article 124 (4) of the Constitution says the motion for impeachment “has to be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting” – in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Given the majority enjoyed by the NDA bloc in both Houses, and the ruling coalition’s brazen support to majoritarian communal politics, the motion of impeachment is unlikely to clear either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.

In the past, there have been four attempts to impeach High Court judges and two to remove Supreme Court judges, with the last being in 2018 against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. None of the motions cleared the entire process.

Article 124 (4) of the Constitution states, “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”

Section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, states: “If notice is given of a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of a Judge… then, the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or, as the case may be, the Chairman (Rajya Sabha) may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.”

Article 124 (5) says: “Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4)”.

Monday December 9 morning opened to outrage at the video screenings of an event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on the Allahabad High Court premises Sunday, Justice Yadav said: “You can’t disrespect a woman who has been recognised as a goddess in our Shastras and Vedas. You can’t claim the right to have four wives, perform halala, or practice triple talaq. You say, we have the right to say ‘triple talaq’, and not give maintenance to women.” He then made some distasteful and anti-Constitutional remarks on how ‘Hindu children are brought up to be tolerant’ unlike Muslim children where upbringing was to the contrary.

According to a VHP press release, the judge also spoke in favour of the UCC. “Having different Constitutions for people of different communities and religions in a country is no less than a danger to the nation. When we talk of human uplift, it should rise above religion and should be within the ambit of the Constitution… If the interests of a woman are to be protected, whether it is about her wealth, her maintenance, her rightful share in the property, her remarriage, or her freedom to choose a partner, the limits of all these things should be decided within the ambit of one Constitution,” Justice Yadav said.

Related:

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

The post Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A statement issued by the Court reads, “The Supreme Court has taken note of the newspaper reports of a speech given by Mr Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The details and particulars have been called from the High Court and the matter is under consideration.”

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has ignited a firestorm of criticism following his inflammatory remarks at an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). His speech, riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones, has been widely condemned as a blatant attack on the Constitution and a violation of judicial propriety. Justice Yadav not only endorsed the controversial Uniform Civil Code (UCC) but also made derogatory statements against the Muslim community, questioning their religious practices and labelling certain members as a threat to national progress. This behaviour, unbecoming of a sitting judge, has cast a shadow over the judiciary’s independence and neutrality, raising urgent concerns about the erosion of constitutional values under the guise of judicial authority.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has demanded an immediate in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct, urging Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to take decisive action. In its strongly worded letter, CJAR highlighted that the judge’s actions have deeply undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It described his comments as “unpardonable and unconscionable slurs” against Muslims, which not only discredit his position but also violate constitutional provisions, including Articles 12, 21, 25, and 26, along with the Preamble that guarantees secularism, equality, and justice.

CJAR files complaint before CJI Sanjiv Khanna seeking in-house inquiry against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after in a recent speech he made contentious statements against the Muslim community and stated that India will function as per the wishes of the majority… pic.twitter.com/D2zqUNWSwp

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) December 10, 2024

Brinda Karat, a Polit Bureau member, also condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks, categorising his speech as hate speech and a betrayal of his constitutional oath. In her letter to the CJI, Karat stated that such statements from a sitting judge are an affront to India’s secular and democratic ethos and an assault on judicial impartiality. She argued that no litigant from a minority community could expect fair treatment in a court where such prejudiced views are openly held. Calling for the judge’s removal, she asserted that his continued presence on the bench was an insult to the judiciary and its commitment to upholding the Constitution.

In her letter, Karat has said that “This speech is an affront to the collective conscience of a secular and democratic country. That it should have been made by a justice of the Allahabad High Court is also an assault on the processes of justice. 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 a majoritarian approach.”

She further said “Such a member brings disgrace to the bench, to the court, to the judicial system as a whole. There can and should be no place for such persons in a court of justice. The country would no doubt be grateful for action from the highest court on this issue.”

https://cpim.org/brinda-karats-letter-to-cji/

The All India Lawyers Union (AILU) joined the chorus of protests, condemning Justice Yadav’s remarks as an endorsement of religious majoritarianism. AILU leaders Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya and PV Surendranath described the speech as promoting an ideology aligned with a Hindutva Rashtra, which they said is fundamentally opposed to the democratic and secular principles of the Indian Constitution.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising called Justice Yadav’s participation in a politically charged VHP event a “shameful” breach of judicial independence, questioning the propriety of his actions.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal escalated the criticism by calling for Justice Yadav’s impeachment. Sibal argued that the judge’s statements were a grave violation of judicial ethics and independence, warning that failure to act decisively would indicate tacit support for his divisive views. Sibal emphasised that the judiciary must remain impartial and free from the influence of communal ideologies, urging political leaders to join forces in holding Justice Yadav accountable.

As per LiveLaw, Sibal stated that “Main chahunga ki some jo Satta- Paksh ke log hai woh hamare saath jurein, aur hum ikkatha ho kar iss judge ke impeachment karein. Hamara Samvidhaan bhi kehta hai ki judiciary independent honi chahiye. Toh mujhe Poora Vishwas hai ki PM, Home Minister aur satta mein Jo MPs hai wohi hamara saath dein. Kyunki agar woh saath nahi dengay toh Aisa lagega ki woh judge ke saath hai. (I would would like the government to join us in impeaching the HC judge. Our constitution also requires judiciary to be independent. The PM, Home Minister and other MPs should show support in impeaching else it will look like they are siding the judge)”

Sr Adv Kapil Sibal calls for impeaching Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over his recent speech at #VHP event

“Main chahunga ki some jo Satta- Paksh ke log hai woh hamare saath jurein, aur hum ikkatha ho kar iss judge ke impeachment karein.”

( I would would like the government to… pic.twitter.com/krJaOOBLBy

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 10, 2024

Justice Yadav’s speech, far from being a neutral discussion on the UCC, was rife with communal bias. He openly criticised Islamic practices, labelled Muslims as “kathmullas” (fanatics), and suggested that their beliefs hinder national progress. Such remarks not only demeaned a specific community but also betrayed the secular and pluralistic framework of the Constitution. The widespread condemnation of his statements underscores the urgent need for accountability, as his behaviour has shaken faith in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice impartially and uphold constitutional values.

Politicians slam Justice Yadav’s remarks

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial speech at a VHP event drew sharp criticism not only from the legal fraternity but also from prominent political leaders across party lines. Politicians accused the judge of undermining constitutional values and promoting majoritarianism, with some even questioning his suitability for the bench. The backlash from political circles highlighted the broader implications of his remarks on India’s secular fabric and the perception of judicial neutrality

SP leader Ramgopal Yadav invoked the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) while criticising Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial remarks. He accused the RSS of manipulating systems to influence judicial outcomes, stating, “RSS has always been like that; they can do anything to get to the Supreme Court.” His comment underscored the political implications of Justice Yadav’s statements and the perceived alignment with Hindutva ideologies.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM), the Trinamool Congress (TMC), and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) also strongly condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks, labelling them divisive and inappropriate for a sitting judge. These parties argued that such statements not only violated judicial propriety but also reignited critical debates on the independence and neutrality of the judiciary.

AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi expressed sharp criticism of Justice Yadav’s participation in an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), a group closely associated with the RSS, the ideological foundation of the BJP-led government. Owaisi highlighted the controversial history of the VHP, pointing out that it has been banned multiple times due to its association with hate and violence. He further referenced Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s decision to ban the RSS, calling it a “force of hate and violence,” and described Justice Yadav’s involvement with the VHP as deeply concerning.

Owaisi, in a post on X, remarked, “It is unfortunate that a High Court judge attended the conference of such an organisation. This speech can be easily rebutted, but it is more important to remind Your Honour that the Constitution of India expects judicial independence and impartiality.” His statement encapsulated the growing unease over Justice Yadav’s alignment with communal ideologies, arguing that his actions undermined the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter of justice.

The VHP was banned on various occasions. It is associated with RSS, an organisation that Vallabhai Patel banned for being a ‘force of hate and violence.’

It is unfortunate that a High Court judge attended the conference of such an organisation. This “speech” can be easily… https://t.co/IMce7aYbcf

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 9, 2024

A High Court judge used the word ‘kathmulla’ and set down conditions for Muslims in India (as if we need his permission). Just some reminders from the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ (1997):

1. Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen to be done. The…

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 9, 2024

I have signed a notice seeking removal proceedings against Shekhar Yadav, judge of Allahabad High Court. The process was initiated by @RuhullahMehdi. The judge’s behaviour violates constitutional norms, including the Supreme Court’s “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.”

The…

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 10, 2024

These reactions reflect the broader outrage against Justice Yadav’s remarks, which are widely viewed as a dangerous departure from constitutional values and judicial ethics.

Details of the speech

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has courted controversy with remarks that are not only highly partisan but blatantly communal, delivered during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). Speaking on the topic “Uniform Civil Code: A Constitutional Necessity” at the High Court’s Library Hall in Prayagraj, Justice Yadav’s speech went far beyond advocating for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). It veered into overtly derogatory and inflammatory commentary targeting Muslims and their personal laws, raising grave concerns about judicial propriety and impartiality.

Justice Yadav declared that the country would be governed by the will of the “bahusankhyak” (majority), claiming, “Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted.” He took aim at specific Islamic practices, including polygamy, Halala, and Triple Talaq, dismissing them as incompatible with Indian values, which he defined exclusively through a Hindu lens. Drawing a flawed equivalence with historical reforms within Hinduism, such as the abolition of Sati and untouchability, he questioned, “Why can’t the law permitting Muslims to have multiple wives be outlawed as well?” Such remarks not only show a lack of understanding of constitutional protections for religious diversity but also vilify an entire community’s personal laws under the guise of reform.

Justice Yadav’s speech also included troubling references to “kathmullas“—a derogatory term for Muslims he described as fanatics who “incite the public and prevent the country from progressing.” He labelled them a “danger to the country,” further stigmatising the Muslim community. While acknowledging that not all Muslims were “bad,” this attempt at nuance was overshadowed by his communal overgeneralisation and thinly veiled prejudice.

Even more concerning is the platform Justice Yadav chose for these remarks—a VHP event tied to a right-wing ideology. He brushed aside advice from colleagues to exercise restraint, asserting, “I am a judge of this High Court, but I am also a citizen of this country, and I will say whatever is appropriate for a citizen and for this country.” Such justifications are deeply problematic, as they undermine the expectation of neutrality and secularism from members of the judiciary.

Justice Yadav’s speech, replete with incendiary rhetoric, does not merely advocate for the UCC but promotes a divisive majoritarian worldview that undermines the constitutional commitment to secularism and equality. The judiciary, tasked with upholding the rights of all citizens, particularly minorities, cannot afford to be seen as endorsing or propagating communal bias. Statements such as “this country will function as per the wishes of the majority” fundamentally betray the constitutional promise of justice for all, regardless of religion.

This instance represents a stark challenge to judicial integrity. When a sitting judge aligns with polarising ideologies and denigrates a community, it erodes public faith in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of justice. Justice Yadav’s comments do not merely breach judicial propriety—they reflect a dangerous slide toward institutional partisanship that threatens India’s secular and democratic fabric.

Pattern of Hindutva bias in Justice Yadav’s judgments and conduct

An analysis done by The Scroll of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s judicial orders over the past three-and-a-half years reveals a consistent reliance on Hindutva narratives. His judgments have frequently referenced points aligned with right-wing ideology, including advocating for the state to honour cows and Hindu gods. He has echoed conspiracy theories about forced religious conversions and accused individuals of misusing the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to file false complaints. Notably, Justice Yadav has even publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, further raising concerns about his impartiality.

Notably, these actions stand in stark violation of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a code of judicial ethics adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. The code explicitly states that judges must refrain from expressing views on political matters or engaging in public debates on issues likely to arise for judicial determination. It emphasises that judges must always be aware of their public role and avoid any conduct unbecoming of their high office or undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

The code states “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;” and that, “Every Judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s actions—both from the bench and beyond—underscore a troubling departure from the expected standards of judicial conduct and neutrality. By aligning himself with divisive ideologies and participating in politically charged events, he risks eroding public trust in the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional values. His pattern of judgments invoking Hindutva talking points, coupled with his open praise for political figures and participation in events organised by right-wing groups, challenges the foundational principle of judicial independence. At a time when the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter is crucial, such conduct not only undermines its credibility but also raises pressing questions about accountability within the judicial system. If left unchecked, this trend could have far-reaching consequences for the secular and democratic fabric of the nation.

Justice Yadav’s participation in the VHP-organised event, compounded by his history of ideologically charged judgments, has drawn widespread criticism. The timing of this event, just months after the VHP’s legal cell organised a controversial “Judges Meet” in September 2024—attended by several former judges, including retired Supreme Court Justice Hemant Gupta—has only intensified concerns about the perceived proximity between members of the judiciary and right-wing organisations. Many argue that such associations jeopardise the judiciary’s independence and erode trust in its commitment to constitutional values.

Related:

UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance

BJP’s Hindutva shift, strategy of diverting from real issues and concerns over electoral tactics

Indore Court clears Muslim bangle seller of molestation charges after lengthy legal battle, states that prosecution failed to prove charges

The post Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones appeared first on SabrangIndia.