All India Lawyers Union and All India Lawyers Association for Justice slam Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav for his derogatory reference to the Muslim community
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – Two influential groups of lawyers have demanded action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, over his “hate speech,” “communal” and “Islamophobic” remarks during an event organised by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj at the weekend.
All India Lawyers Union (AILU) and All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ) slammed the judge for his derogatory reference to the Muslim community.
Expressing strong protest against his speech, the AILU hoped that the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court would intervene and take necessary remedial action and initiate proceedings against Justice Yadav. On the other hand, the AILAJ filed a complaint with Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna urging immediate action against Justice Yadav for his “open bigotry, prejudice and unconstitutional conduct unbecoming of a judge of the high court.”
In a statement released on Monday, senior advocate Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, AILU president, said the speech delivered by Justice Yadav is against the constitution, its ethos and a direct affront to its basic structure – secularism and independence of judiciary.
“It tantamounts to sabotaging the independence of the judiciary from within. The tone and tenure of the speech amount to hate speech against the Muslim minority in the name of the majoritarian Hindu religion. His imputations, allegations and expressions against the Muslim minority are of vicious, vitriolic and venomous nature; most unbecoming of a sitting judge of a constitutional court and are a violation of constitutional oath of office of a judge of the high court,” he said.
Criticising Justice Yadav’s views about the country’s legal system, Bhattacharya pointed out that democracy is not majoritarianism or religious majoritarianism.
“His expression and concept of democracy is nothing less than of Hindu Rashtra. This incident once again illustrates and demonstrates the weakness of the collegium system in the matter of selection and appointment of judges of the constitutional courts – High courts and the Supreme Court, and to deal with their misdemeanours; not capable of protecting the independence of the judiciary; and the need for an independent constitutional mechanism for selection and appointment of judges of constitutional courts without conceding dominance of the executive or judiciary and giving representation to all stakeholders in that independent constitutional autonomous institution,” he said.
In its complaint with the CJI Khanna, AILAJ cited the controversial remarks made by Justice Yadav calling them “communal, Islamophobic and reflect a Hindu majoritarian viewpoint, mirroring that of the organisers of the event”.
“It is shocking that a sitting judge of the high court, can utter such a derogatory and condemnable word like ‘kathmulla,’” said AILAJ in the complaint.
According to AILAJ, Justice Shekhar Yadav has abandoned his duties and responsibility as a judge of the high court to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. The mandate of the constitutional courts to uphold the cherished principles of the Constitution and not to be remotely guided by majoritarian views or popular perception (Navtej Johar vs Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1), has to be discharged by judges, both inside and outside the courts. Courts and its judges have to be guided by the conception of constitutional morality and not by the societal morality. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court in Navtej Johar, held that the “guarantee of constitutional rights does not depend upon their exercise being favourably regarded by majoritarian opinion.”.
“In a democratic Constitution founded on the rule of law, rights of minorities are as sacred as those conferred on other citizens to protect their freedoms and liberties,” it stated.
Both the groups have raised questions over the process of the selection through which these judges are appointed.
“Justice Yadav has failed in not only discharging his obligation as a high court judge, but failed as a citizen to abide by the constitutionally mandated fundamental duty enjoined upon every citizen of the country under Article 51A (e) to “promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities”. Can a person, sworn as a judge under oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, and who spectacularly fails to this precise mandate be allowed to continue in office? Justice Yadav has spoken out loud and clear. It is for the Supreme Court to make itself heard now,” asserted AILAJ in its lengthy complaint to the Supreme Court.
