Judicial propriety and neutrality form the bedrock of democratic governance, ensuring the judiciary remains a guardian of constitutional principles and an impartial arbiter of justice. These tenets demand that judges maintain neutrality, steer clear of political influences, and act in ways that uphold the integrity of their office. Recent remarks by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court have cast serious doubt on his adherence to these principles.
Justice Yadav’s statements at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have sparked widespread criticism and raised pressing questions about judicial impartiality, constitutional adherence, and the potential impact on public confidence in the judiciary.
Controversial Remarks
Justice Yadav’s speech at the VHP event was marked by his advocacy for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which he described as necessary for promoting social harmony, gender equality, and secularism. He asserted that the country should be governed “as per the wishes of the majority,” implying that India’s legal framework must align with the preferences of the numerical majority. These statements are absolutely against India’s constitutional ethos, which enshrines secularism and safeguards the rights of minorities under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution.
Although he did not specifically name the Muslim community, he questioned, “How would their children be kind and tolerant when animals were being slaughtered in front of them since childhood?” Justice Yadav said that not everybody from this community is bad but “kathmullas… are fatal for the country”.
This is not the first instance of Justice Yadav making contentious statements. On earlier occasions, he has made unscientific and unconstitutional remarks. In a 2021 judgment, he claimed that “scientists believe cows are the only animals that inhale and exhale oxygen.” He also linked cow products, such as panchgavya (a mixture of cow dung, cow urine, and milk), to curing incurable diseases.
On other occasions, he even questioned the values of certain communities. These instances collectively paint a troubling picture of a judge whose personal beliefs conflict with his constitutional duties. Such conduct diminishes public trust in the judiciary and casts a shadow over its independence and neutrality.
Judicial Propriety: A Non-Negotiable Standard
The principle of judicial propriety demands that judges abstain from making public statements that could compromise their perceived impartiality. Justice Yadav’s participation in a VHP-organised event – a group known for its communal ideology and has overt political affiliations – and his remarks endorsing a contentious policy like the UCC blur the lines between judicial conduct and political partisanship. When a judge publicly aligns with the agenda of an ideologically driven group, it raises questions about their ability to adjudicate fairly on related matters.
Such conduct also contradicts the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which emphasise independence, impartiality, and propriety as fundamental values. By openly endorsing the UCC and suggesting that governance should follow the majority’s will, Justice Yadav has ventured into the domain of political advocacy, which undermines the judiciary’s professed neutrality.
Constitutional Democracy vs. Majoritarianism
India’s democracy is not majoritarian but constitutional, ensuring that governance is guided by the rule of law and the protection of minority rights. The Constitution explicitly recognises India’s pluralism, with Articles 25 to 28 guaranteeing religious freedoms. The Constitution recommends UCCunder Article 44 as a non-binding directive principle. Therefore, the implementation of the UCC must be approached with sensitivity to India’s socio-cultural realities, balancing constitutional aspirations with the protection of fundamental rights, including the rights of minorities and tribals.
Justice Yadav’s assertion that the country should be governed according to the majority’s wishes contradicts this tenet. Such a perspective undermines the constitutional mandate to uphold secular values and pluralism, potentially alienating minority communities and deepening social divisions.
Political and Civil Society Backlash
Justice Yadav’s remarks have provoked a strong response from political leaders, civil society, and legal experts. National Conference leader Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi has initiated impeachment proceedings against him, garnering support from Opposition parties, including the Congress, DMK, and Trinamool Congress. Mehdi’s motion argues that Justice Yadav’s statements violate the solemn oath judges take to uphold the Constitution impartially.
Legal activist Prashant Bhushan has also called for an in-house inquiry, citing the need to uphold public confidence in the judiciary. Bhushan’s letter to the Chief Justice of India references the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, which mandates impartiality and prohibits conduct that erodes confidence in judicial institutions. He emphasised that Justice Yadav’s remarks undermine the principles of equality and secularism enshrined in the Constitution.
Judicial Neutrality Under Scrutiny
Judges are entrusted with the sacred responsibility of interpreting and upholding the Constitution. Their impartiality is essential for maintaining public trust in the judiciary. The Supreme Court, in cases like Tarak Singh vs. Jyoti Basu (2005), has highlighted the importance of judicial propriety, noting that “any ambition or pursuit that compromises the divine judicial duty is impermissible.”
Justice Yadav’s participation in a politically aligned event and his public advocacy for the UCC blur the line between personal beliefs and judicial responsibilities. Such actions compromise the judiciary’s image as a neutral arbiter of justice and risk creating a perception of bias, particularly among minority communities. This perception could weaken confidence in the judiciary’s ability to uphold constitutional principles impartially.
Implications for Judicial Independence
The controversy surrounding Justice Yadav’s remarks underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability. While judges must be free from external pressures to perform their duties, this independence does not grant them the liberty to express political or sectarian views publicly. By participating in an event organised by an ideological group, Justice Yadav has compromised the appearance of neutrality, creating a conflict of interest that undermines public confidence.
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek details from the Allahabad High Court reflects an institutional acknowledgement of the gravity of this breach of judicial decorum. Legal experts have called for an in-house inquiry and the reassignment of Justice Yadav’s judicial responsibilities pending investigation. Such steps are crucial to restoring public trust in the judiciary.
The Need for Judicial Accountability
The judiciary’s credibility hinges on its adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and accountability. Justice Yadav’s remarks highlight the urgent need for institutional mechanisms to uphold these values. The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct provide a robust framework, but their enforcement requires a culture of accountability within the judiciary.
Judicial training programmes must emphasise the importance of maintaining constitutional values and avoiding political entanglements. Additionally, a code of conduct should delineate the boundaries of judicial speech and participation in public forums. Such measures would ensure that judges remain committed to their constitutional duties and refrain from actions that compromise the judiciary’s integrity.
Restoring Public Trust
Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks serve as a stark reminder of the importance of judicial neutrality in a diverse democracy like India. The judiciary must remain above political and sectarian considerations to preserve its role as the guardian of constitutional rights. While judges are entitled to personal beliefs, expressing them in ways that conflict with their judicial role is unacceptable.
Restoring public trust in the judiciary requires a firm and transparent response to such incidents. An in-house inquiry, coupled with clear guidelines on judicial conduct, would demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and accountability. By reaffirming its adherence to constitutional principles, the judiciary can reinforce its role as a pillar of democracy and the rule of law.
Safeguarding Judicial Integrity
The judiciary is the last bastion of hope for citizens seeking justice and redressal. It must ensure that its actions and words inspire confidence and uphold the principles of equality, fairness, and justice. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s remarks at the VHP event are a sobering reminder of the delicate balance that judges must maintain between personal beliefs and constitutional duties.
In the face of growing majoritarianism and polarisation, the judiciary must remain steadfast as a neutral arbiter, committed to protecting the Constitution and the rights of all citizens, irrespective of their identity. Judicial propriety and neutrality are not merely desirable; they are indispensable to the survival of democracy and the rule of law in India.
[The writer is Assistant Secretary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind]