Stepping in, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought details from the Allahabad High Court on controversial remarks of its judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav at a Vishva Hindu Parishad event that drew flak from various quarters for allegedly breaching judicial ethics, with Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal threatening an impeachment motion against the judge for his “hate speech”.
IMAGE: Allahabad high court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav . Photograph: X
As the row intensified, Vishva Hindu Parishad chief Alok Kumar rejected the opposition’s criticism of Justice Yadav for his speech at its event in Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh and asserted such “awareness meets” would continue.
Amid a rising clamour for action from Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna against the high court judge for his remarks, the apex court issued a statement saying it has taken note of newspaper reports of the judge’s speech and is considering the matter.
“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 (sic), the statement said.
At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of the uniform civil code (UCC) was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism.
He was addressing a provincial convention of the legal cell and high court unit of the VHP in Allahabad High Court.
A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders who questioned his reported statements, labelling them as “hate speech”.
Lawyer and convenor of the NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms Prashant Bhushan on Tuesday wrote to CJI Khanna seeking an “in-house enquiry” into the conduct of the Allahabad HC judge.
“A strong institutional response is needed to restore public faith in the judiciary,” the letter said.
Rajya Sabha MP and Supreme Court Bar Association Chairman Kapil Sibal alleged that the judge has violated his oath of office by making a “hate speech” and said that he along with other opposition MPs will submit a notice to bring a motion to impeach the judge.
Sources said the opposition MPs are likely to submit the notice in the next few days.
“If a high court judge can make a speech like this then the question arises how do such people get appointed in the first place? The question also arises how do they get the courage to make such remarks? The question also arises as to why these things are happening in the last 10 years,” the senior advocate said at a press conference.
National Conference Lok Sabha MP from Srinagar Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi also said he is planning to submit a notice to bring an impeachment motion against the judge and has been assured of support by members of the Congress, Samajwadi Party, DMK and the Trinamool Congress.
“I am moving impeachment motion in the Parliament in accordance with Art 124(4) of the Constitution for the removal of this Justice namely Shekhar K Yadav, a sitting Judge in Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on the charges mentioned in the notice,” Mehdi said in a post on X.
Mehdi said he has secured the support of seven members, including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, but needs 100 members to sign the notice for the impeachment motion.
“I need the signatures of 100 members to move this motion. More than 7 members including @asadowaisi sahab, Shri Rajkumar Roat Hon’ble MP from Rajasthan, Shri Sudhama Prasad ji Hon’ble MP from Bihar, Jinab Mohibbullah Sahab Hon’ble MP from U.P and Jinab Ziau Rahman sahab, Hon’ble MP from U.P signed it and I thank them for their support and signatures,” he said.
Vishva Hindu Parishad chief Alok Kumar said sitting judges are invited at such awareness meets only to enlighten the audience on topics like UCC.
“We had invited the judge as a faculty to speak on the Uniform Civil Code. We work among former judges, invite them to work for the VHP, for Hindutva. But as far as sitting judges are concerned, we do not expect them or invite them to work for the VHP. Sometimes on topics like the UCC, we do invite them to enlighten us,” Kumar told PTI on the phone.
“So, on the issue of UCC, the HC judge said at the meet it was a Constitutional mandate under the Directive Principles of State Policy. He said it should be expected that the directives should be adhered to by elected representatives. He referred to various SC judgments that insisted the governments should evolve a UCC and said that the UCC would be good for complete integration of society and unity of India,” Kumar said.
He said he was not present at the Prayagraj meeting but was certainly aware of the deliberations.
The VHP leader, however, said he was not aware of the exact nature of the comments on “majority” attributed to the HC judge, but “would not be apologetic” even if the HC judge has said so about the majority having a say in how the laws should work.
“We had invited the judge to speak on the UCC. I would not be able to authenticate those views of his, but then the sentiments and emotions of the majority society deserve as much respect as the sensitivities of the minority,” Kumar said.
“So, I would not be apologetic about it if he (the HC judge) said so. If a majority holds a particular view, then others should not make an issue of it,” he said.
On inviting a sitting judge to the event, Kumar said, “We ask our legal cell to organise awareness sessions or meetings inviting advocates in big numbers to advocate on issues like the liberation of Hindu temples, provisions and amendments of the Waqf Act, and on UCC. So there would be meetings everywhere.
“We will invite former judges to speak on those aspects,” the VHP chief told PTI.
In his letter to the CJI, Bhushan alleged the judge breached judicial ethics and violated the constitutional principles of impartiality and secularism.
According to Bhushan, the remarks undermined the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter and eroded public trust in its independence.
“We call upon your office sir (the CJI), to restore the faith of the people in the institution of the judiciary by immediately setting up an in-house committee to enquire into acts of judicial impropriety by Justice Yadav and by withdrawing all judicial work from Justice Yadav,” it said
On December 8, CPI-M leader Brinda Karat wrote to the CJI stating the judge’s speech was a violation of his oath and there is “no place for such persons in a court of justice”. Karat sought action from the apex court on the issue.
The Bar Association of India also passed a resolution condemning the statement of the high court judge.
