Allahabad High Court’s Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav remarks targeting Muslims at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event on December 8 has sparked national debate and opposition leaders have demanded his impeachment. Legal fraternity has also by and large condemned his hate speech and asked the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to take note of the new low and intervene to save the judiciary from this hate mentality emerging from the corridors of judiciary which is likely to set a dangerous precedent. Questions are also raised as to how a VHP event was organised in the courtpremises.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna has taken serious note as Justice Yadav was asked to appear before the Collegium. The Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, met with Justice Yadav on Tuesday, addressing concerns over his contentious remarks made during a VHP event earlier this month. CJI Sanjiv Khanna has apprised the full court of the Supreme Court on Wednesday of the Collegium’s meeting with Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, reports The Indian Express.
As per the Express report, “It is very much an ongoing issue and no decision has been made. The full court was just told that the meeting had taken place,” a source said. Another report said that at the meeting Tuesday, the Collegium had told Justice Yadav that a public apology on record was needed to put the issue to rest. But he wanted to clarify from a public platform at a future date that his remarks had not been taken in the proper spirit. The Collegium will wait for a few days before deliberating on the next steps. The CJI discussing the issue with the full court is seen by those in the judicial circles as an indication of the Collegium’s seriousness of the issue and an attempt to “take the court into confidence” on the next steps.
Maneesh Chhibber is his article in The Leaflet has said, “In his letter addressed to the CJI on August 13, 2018, Justice Chandrachud pointed to Yadav’s inadequate work experience, his links with the RSS, the ideological parent of the BJP, and, most importantly, his closeness to a (then) BJP Rajya Sabha MP, who is currently a Union Minister. He is not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud summed up at the end of his note about Yadav.”
“Justice Yadav is not the only judge in India with such a communal mindset, and who have made such statements. Judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Indian Constitution proclaims India to be a secular country. So even though 80% of India’s population is Hindu, India cannot be legally called a Hindu country, unlike Pakistan whose Constitution says it is an Islamic State, and it cannot be legally run in accordance with the wishes of its majority,” said Justice MarkandeyKatju.
He added, “A Judge has to be independent, neutral, impartial and unbiased. But how can Justice Yadav be so when he has revealed his communal bias in his speech? It was highly improper for an Indian judge to attend a function organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which is part of the ‘Sangh Parivar’, and is an adjunct of the RSS, a body which is rabidly anti minority. Similarly, there have been other instances that raise concerns about the impartiality of Indian judges in a diverse, pluralistic society. For example, former Chief Justice of India, Justice Chandrachud, invited Prime Minister Modi to perform Ganesh Puja at his residence.”
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegdesaid,“Mr Shekhar Yadav’s utterances at a VHP function have been beneath the dignity attached to the solemn office of a judge of a constitutional court. It is in violation of the judiciary’s Restatement of Judicial values adopted in 1997. The judiciary cannot afford to let these remarks pass unrebutted and unrebuked. While Parliament may or may not proffer the votes to impeach him, the judiciary cannot be inert or inactive. The options of transfer and of withdrawing judicial work are always available to those managing the judiciary.”
Justice Iqbal Ansari, former Chief Justice of Patna High Court said, “This should not be the language of Judge for any community be it Muslims or Sikhs, Christians or even for non-Muslims. His language is very communal and it should be condemned because this has never been the language of the judiciary.”