Waquar Hasan | Clarion India
NEW DELHI — It has been over 72 days since Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav made hate speeches targeting Muslims at an event held by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj district. However, Yadav has not so far faced any legal action for his communal remarks raising questions about the conduct of the judiciary.
On 8 December last year while addressing the event on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Justice Yadav used derogatory term ‘Kathmullah’ for Muslims and said the country will be run as per the wishes of the majority.
“I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan, this country would function as per the wishes of the bahusankhyak (majority) living in Hindustan. This is the law. You can’t say you are saying this being a High Court Judge. The law works according to the majority. Look at it in the context of family or society. Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted,” he had said.
The hateful remarks had drawn massive outrage from the legal luminaries, eminent advocates, lawyer groups, opposition leaders and activists.
The Supreme Court took note of the matter and Justice Yadav even reportedly appeared before the Supreme Court Collegium and was told that his remarks were ‘avoidable’. A month later, in a response to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Yadav asserted that he stands by his remarks. On 1 February 2025, a day after his retirement, Justice Hrishikesh Roy confirmed to the media that CJI Sanjiv Khanna had initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav.
Earlier, MPs from the opposition parties submitted an impeachment motion in the parliament against the judge. In the Lok Sabha, Srinagar MP Ruhullah Mehdi led the impeachment motion with the approval of 100 MPs while eminent advocate Kapil Sibal moved the motion with signature of 55 MPs.
Despite all these moves, Justice Yadav continues to be the judge of the Allahabad High Court and hears the matter. According to reports, his assignment has been changed. Now all he will hear are first appeals from orders of a civil court limited to appeals prior to the year 2010. However, his presence at the High Court bench is raising concerns among the advocates.
In a recent piece published on The Leaflet, senior advocate Ajay Kumar wrote “After Justice Yadav’s speech, can a Muslim litigant expect a fair hearing before his bench? Can anyone, wishing to challenge certain actions, expect a fair and patient hearing, expect an adjudication that is based on facts, and geared towards delivering justice in accordance with the law? A judiciary is only as good as how it is perceived. If people cannot expect fairness from a court, its ostensible objective withers. Just as how when a judge wades into issues that are not necessarily in his business, the integrity of the position he holds withers”.
The presence of Justice Yadav in the bench can be attributed to the current political atmosphere of the country. The judge emboldened to pass such communal remarks not just because the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is ruling in the state and at Centre but also because of the normalisation of the hate speeches being made by the people in power. Political leaders, ministers, MPs and MLAs, mostly from ruling BJP regime, are making hate speeches targeting the Muslim community on the regular basis while Hindutva groups are being given free hands to indulge in hate crimes. Justice Yadav is also a creation of this toxic atmosphere.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Uttar Pradesh chief minister backed Justice Shekhar Yadav and slammed opposition for moving impeachment motion against the Allahabad Judge.
“Whoever speaks the truth, these people will pressurise him with impeachment (motions), and still they talk about the Constitution. Look at their double standards,” said Yogi Adityanath speaking at the World Hindu Economic Forum on 14 December.
The presence of Justice Yadav in the High Court can significantly attributed to the political situation of the country. Another major reason which was cited by advocate Kumar in his piece is the failure of the Bar Council to do its job of defending the integrity of the court.
“When it comes to Justice Yadav, the Bar has not done much. Apart from the usual human rights lawyers and cause lawyers, the majority of the Bar has let this slide. Lawyers in Allahabad and Uttar Pradesh in general have not gone on strike yet. Counsels appearing before Justice Yadav are not wearing black bands – a quintessential symbol of protest within the courtroom’s sanctity. There are no protests, no open letters. Quite frankly this silence is deafening,” he wrote.
