The Allahabad High Court judge’s Islamophobic hate speech have sparked a wider debate about the role of judges in public life
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – Troubles have mounted for Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court following his Islamophobic hate speech against Muslims at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in Prayagraj on December 8.
Weeks after the Supreme Court took note of Justice Yadav’s remarks, the apex court has now sought a fresh report from the high court. The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has written to Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali seeking an update on the report, media reports said on Thursday
The collegium had met Justice Yadav on December 17, seeking an explanation for his comments at the event of the Hindutva extremist organisation where he made several references to the “ills” in Muslim society. Since the meeting, however, Justice Yadav has issued no apology or explanation.
The collegium, reportedly unhappy with Justice Yadav’s failure to adequately address the issue, has called Justice Yadav again for questioning.
The controversy has also led to a proposal for the impeachment of Justice Yadav in Parliament, following his derogatory comments against Muslims. In response, a petition was filed in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the impeachment proceedings. However, the bench rejected the petition, ruling that the issue raised in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was not of sufficient importance to warrant legal action. The bench clarified that PILs are meant to highlight matters concerning the oppressed and marginalised sections of society, not individual grievances.
Despite the legal setback, the debate over Justice Yadav’s comments continues to dominate the national discourse, and the matter now rests in the hands of the Supreme Court.
The controversy erupted when Justice Yadav commented at the Prayagraj meeting claiming that the country’s system will run according to the majority. He further added, “Even a family runs according to the majority, so what is wrong in running the country in the same way?” His comments on Muslims, whom he referred to as “Kathamullas” (a derogatory term), triggered widespread backlash. He also said Muslim children could not be expected to be “tolerant” and “generous” as they are exposed to violence – “the slaughter of animals” – from an early stage.
In comparison, Yadav added, Hindus were taught about kindness from an early age and their children had non-violence and tolerance ingrained in them.
His remarks were seen as inflammatory and divisive, and they quickly drew condemnation from various political, social, and religious groups.
The Bar Association of India condemned Justice Yadav’s rants. “These remarks are contrary to the principle of secularism as enshrined in the Constitution of India, in flagrant violation of the oath of office of a judge of Constitutional Court and strike at the very foundation of a fair and unbiased judiciary which sustains the Rule of Law,” the legal body said.
Following the public outcry, there were calls for his resignation, and the matter quickly escalated, eventually leading to intervention by the Supreme Court. Many have questioned the appropriateness of a sitting judge making such remarks, with some calling for an investigation into whether his views could compromise his impartiality on the bench.
Justice Yadav’s remarks have led to a broader conversation about the role of judicial figures in shaping public discourse, particularly when their personal views seem to contradict the values of equality and justice which are foundational to the constitution. The Supreme Court’s involvement in this matter is significant, as it underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for accountability.
As the controversy continues to unfold, the actions taken by the collegium and the Supreme Court will be closely monitored, with many wondering whether this case will set a precedent for how similar incidents are handled in the future.
Justice Yadav’s future as a judge now hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court moves forward with its investigation into his comments. While the legal process continues, the case has already sparked a wider debate about the role of judges in public life and the need for sensitivity, especially when it comes to matters of religion and community. The coming days will likely reveal how the judicial system addresses the growing concerns over the actions of one of its own.
