The judge’s comments, veiled in constitutional terminology, target one particular religion and threaten the rule of law, the AIMPLB said
NEW DELHI – Ahead of the Parliament’s monsoon session, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Thursday urged all political parties to take a firm and immediate stand against Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court over his deeply “hateful” and “communal” speech.
The board, which represents the interests of the Muslim community on personal laws and constitutional matters, has expressed grave concern over what it termed “deliberate inaction” by the legal and political establishments for more than six months.
Justice Yadav made the disparaging remarks at a VHP function on December 8, 2024.
In a formal representation sent to leaders across the political spectrum, AIMPLB demanded that appropriate constitutional and parliamentary action be initiated against the judge, citing the gravity of the speech and the symbolic importance of judicial neutrality.
According to the AIMPLB’s letter, authored by General Secretary Maulana Mohammed Fazlur Rahim Mujaddidi, the speech by Justice Yadav purported to uphold constitutional values but in reality conveyed a distorted and exclusionary interpretation of secularism, deeply rooted in the judge’s own religious identity.
“The learned judge appears to have not only forgotten the position that he commands but has also disregarded the fact that the concept of a secular state, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, demands equal treatment of all religious and cultural practices,” the letter stated.
It further added that Justice Yadav’s interpretation of secularism was “coloured by a strong religious consciousness” that appeared to be in conflict with the inclusive ethos of the country’s constitutional democracy.
The board emphasised that freedom of faith and religious practice is a cornerstone of India’s social fabric. “Many religious practices, particularly in the realm of interpersonal relationships, are deeply embedded in community life. The judge’s comments, veiled in constitutional terminology, target one particular religion and threaten the rule of law,” the letter said.
Justice Yadav, the board alleges, failed in his primary duty as a member of a constitutional court to remain impartial. “By promoting a particular religious and ideological agenda under the pretext of constitutional reasoning, Justice Yadav has violated the principle of neutrality that is fundamental to judicial conduct,” Mujaddidi’s letter notes.
The AIMPLB pointed out that such conduct from a sitting judge not only erodes the public’s trust in the judiciary but also emboldens divisive forces. “The judge has attempted to institutionalise a personal worldview that is neither secular nor constitutional,” the letter said, warning that continued inaction would send a dangerous message to the judiciary and the public alike.
The board also expressed disappointment with the political class for its apparent indifference. “For the past six months, there has been no effective response to this deeply troubling episode,” the statement read. “It appears that the political leadership of this country has not taken this issue with the seriousness it deserves.”
Reminding political parties of their constitutional obligations, the AIMPLB stated: “The constitutional culture envisioned by the framers of the Constitution does not permit a judge to hold and express partisan views while occupying a judicial position. Diversity and inclusivity — hallmarks of the Indian republic — are incompatible with the kind of approach taken by Justice Yadav.”
The AIMPLB called for political parties to initiate appropriate constitutional mechanisms to address what it believes is a clear case of judicial misconduct. While the letter did not explicitly mention impeachment, legal experts note that such representations often pave the way for future legislative or judicial review, particularly under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution dealing with judicial conduct and removal.
“The longer this matter remains unaddressed, the deeper the damage to the rule of law and the secular fabric of the country,” the letter warned.
Justice Yadav ostensibly spoke about the Uniform Civil Code and seemed to endorse a system of majoritarian rule while also using phrases like ‘humaari Gita, aapki Quran’ (our Bhagavad Gita, your Qur’an) and a derogatory word like ‘kathmullah’. Several observers noted that the lecture fell into the category of ‘hate speech’ against Muslims.
