Update : In the afternoon of December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court acknowledged reports regarding a controversial speech delivered by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a judge of the Allahabad High Court, at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Sunday. The Court has requested information about the speech from the Allahabad High Court.
A statement issued by the Court reads, “The Supreme Court has taken note of the newspaper reports of a speech given by Mr Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The details and particulars have been called from the High Court and the matter is under consideration.”
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has ignited a firestorm of criticism following his inflammatory remarks at an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). His speech, riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones, has been widely condemned as a blatant attack on the Constitution and a violation of judicial propriety. Justice Yadav not only endorsed the controversial Uniform Civil Code (UCC) but also made derogatory statements against the Muslim community, questioning their religious practices and labelling certain members as a threat to national progress. This behaviour, unbecoming of a sitting judge, has cast a shadow over the judiciary’s independence and neutrality, raising urgent concerns about the erosion of constitutional values under the guise of judicial authority.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has demanded an immediate in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct, urging Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to take decisive action. In its strongly worded letter, CJAR highlighted that the judge’s actions have deeply undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It described his comments as “unpardonable and unconscionable slurs” against Muslims, which not only discredit his position but also violate constitutional provisions, including Articles 12, 21, 25, and 26, along with the Preamble that guarantees secularism, equality, and justice.
Brinda Karat, a Polit Bureau member, also condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks, categorising his speech as hate speech and a betrayal of his constitutional oath. In her letter to the CJI, Karat stated that such statements from a sitting judge are an affront to India’s secular and democratic ethos and an assault on judicial impartiality. She argued that no litigant from a minority community could expect fair treatment in a court where such prejudiced views are openly held. Calling for the judge’s removal, she asserted that his continued presence on the bench was an insult to the judiciary and its commitment to upholding the Constitution.
In her letter, Karat has said that “This speech is an affront to the collective conscience of a secular and democratic country. That it should have been made by a justice of the Allahabad High Court is also an assault on the processes of justice. No litigant can hope for justice in a court in which a member holds such a biased, prejudiced, publicly expressed opinion against the minority community and in favour of a majoritarian approach.”
She further said “Such a member brings disgrace to the bench, to the court, to the judicial system as a whole. There can and should be no place for such persons in a court of justice. The country would no doubt be grateful for action from the highest court on this issue.”
The All India Lawyers Union (AILU) joined the chorus of protests, condemning Justice Yadav’s remarks as an endorsement of religious majoritarianism. AILU leaders Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya and PV Surendranath described the speech as promoting an ideology aligned with a Hindutva Rashtra, which they said is fundamentally opposed to the democratic and secular principles of the Indian Constitution.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising called Justice Yadav’s participation in a politically charged VHP event a “shameful” breach of judicial independence, questioning the propriety of his actions.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal escalated the criticism by calling for Justice Yadav’s impeachment. Sibal argued that the judge’s statements were a grave violation of judicial ethics and independence, warning that failure to act decisively would indicate tacit support for his divisive views. Sibal emphasised that the judiciary must remain impartial and free from the influence of communal ideologies, urging political leaders to join forces in holding Justice Yadav accountable.
As per LiveLaw, Sibal stated that “Main chahunga ki some jo Satta- Paksh ke log hai woh hamare saath jurein, aur hum ikkatha ho kar iss judge ke impeachment karein. Hamara Samvidhaan bhi kehta hai ki judiciary independent honi chahiye. Toh mujhe Poora Vishwas hai ki PM, Home Minister aur satta mein Jo MPs hai wohi hamara saath dein. Kyunki agar woh saath nahi dengay toh Aisa lagega ki woh judge ke saath hai. (I would would like the government to join us in impeaching the HC judge. Our constitution also requires judiciary to be independent. The PM, Home Minister and other MPs should show support in impeaching else it will look like they are siding the judge)”
Justice Yadav’s speech, far from being a neutral discussion on the UCC, was rife with communal bias. He openly criticised Islamic practices, labelled Muslims as “kathmullas” (fanatics), and suggested that their beliefs hinder national progress. Such remarks not only demeaned a specific community but also betrayed the secular and pluralistic framework of the Constitution. The widespread condemnation of his statements underscores the urgent need for accountability, as his behaviour has shaken faith in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice impartially and uphold constitutional values.
Politicians slam Justice Yadav’s remarks
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial speech at a VHP event drew sharp criticism not only from the legal fraternity but also from prominent political leaders across party lines. Politicians accused the judge of undermining constitutional values and promoting majoritarianism, with some even questioning his suitability for the bench. The backlash from political circles highlighted the broader implications of his remarks on India’s secular fabric and the perception of judicial neutrality
SP leader Ramgopal Yadav invoked the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) while criticising Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial remarks. He accused the RSS of manipulating systems to influence judicial outcomes, stating, “RSS has always been like that; they can do anything to get to the Supreme Court.” His comment underscored the political implications of Justice Yadav’s statements and the perceived alignment with Hindutva ideologies.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM), the Trinamool Congress (TMC), and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) also strongly condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks, labelling them divisive and inappropriate for a sitting judge. These parties argued that such statements not only violated judicial propriety but also reignited critical debates on the independence and neutrality of the judiciary.
AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi expressed sharp criticism of Justice Yadav’s participation in an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), a group closely associated with the RSS, the ideological foundation of the BJP-led government. Owaisi highlighted the controversial history of the VHP, pointing out that it has been banned multiple times due to its association with hate and violence. He further referenced Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s decision to ban the RSS, calling it a “force of hate and violence,” and described Justice Yadav’s involvement with the VHP as deeply concerning.
Owaisi, in a post on X, remarked, “It is unfortunate that a High Court judge attended the conference of such an organisation. This speech can be easily rebutted, but it is more important to remind Your Honour that the Constitution of India expects judicial independence and impartiality.” His statement encapsulated the growing unease over Justice Yadav’s alignment with communal ideologies, arguing that his actions undermined the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter of justice.
These reactions reflect the broader outrage against Justice Yadav’s remarks, which are widely viewed as a dangerous departure from constitutional values and judicial ethics.
Details of the speech
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has courted controversy with remarks that are not only highly partisan but blatantly communal, delivered during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). Speaking on the topic “Uniform Civil Code: A Constitutional Necessity” at the High Court’s Library Hall in Prayagraj, Justice Yadav’s speech went far beyond advocating for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). It veered into overtly derogatory and inflammatory commentary targeting Muslims and their personal laws, raising grave concerns about judicial propriety and impartiality.
Justice Yadav declared that the country would be governed by the will of the “bahusankhyak” (majority), claiming, “Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted.” He took aim at specific Islamic practices, including polygamy, Halala, and Triple Talaq, dismissing them as incompatible with Indian values, which he defined exclusively through a Hindu lens. Drawing a flawed equivalence with historical reforms within Hinduism, such as the abolition of Sati and untouchability, he questioned, “Why can’t the law permitting Muslims to have multiple wives be outlawed as well?” Such remarks not only show a lack of understanding of constitutional protections for religious diversity but also vilify an entire community’s personal laws under the guise of reform.
Justice Yadav’s speech also included troubling references to “kathmullas“—a derogatory term for Muslims he described as fanatics who “incite the public and prevent the country from progressing.” He labelled them a “danger to the country,” further stigmatising the Muslim community. While acknowledging that not all Muslims were “bad,” this attempt at nuance was overshadowed by his communal overgeneralisation and thinly veiled prejudice.
Even more concerning is the platform Justice Yadav chose for these remarks—a VHP event tied to a right-wing ideology. He brushed aside advice from colleagues to exercise restraint, asserting, “I am a judge of this High Court, but I am also a citizen of this country, and I will say whatever is appropriate for a citizen and for this country.” Such justifications are deeply problematic, as they undermine the expectation of neutrality and secularism from members of the judiciary.
Justice Yadav’s speech, replete with incendiary rhetoric, does not merely advocate for the UCC but promotes a divisive majoritarian worldview that undermines the constitutional commitment to secularism and equality. The judiciary, tasked with upholding the rights of all citizens, particularly minorities, cannot afford to be seen as endorsing or propagating communal bias. Statements such as “this country will function as per the wishes of the majority” fundamentally betray the constitutional promise of justice for all, regardless of religion.
This instance represents a stark challenge to judicial integrity. When a sitting judge aligns with polarising ideologies and denigrates a community, it erodes public faith in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of justice. Justice Yadav’s comments do not merely breach judicial propriety—they reflect a dangerous slide toward institutional partisanship that threatens India’s secular and democratic fabric.
Pattern of Hindutva bias in Justice Yadav’s judgments and conduct
An analysis done by The Scroll of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s judicial orders over the past three-and-a-half years reveals a consistent reliance on Hindutva narratives. His judgments have frequently referenced points aligned with right-wing ideology, including advocating for the state to honour cows and Hindu gods. He has echoed conspiracy theories about forced religious conversions and accused individuals of misusing the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to file false complaints. Notably, Justice Yadav has even publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, further raising concerns about his impartiality.
Notably, these actions stand in stark violation of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a code of judicial ethics adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. The code explicitly states that judges must refrain from expressing views on political matters or engaging in public debates on issues likely to arise for judicial determination. It emphasises that judges must always be aware of their public role and avoid any conduct unbecoming of their high office or undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
The code states “A Judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination;” and that, “Every Judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s actions—both from the bench and beyond—underscore a troubling departure from the expected standards of judicial conduct and neutrality. By aligning himself with divisive ideologies and participating in politically charged events, he risks eroding public trust in the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional values. His pattern of judgments invoking Hindutva talking points, coupled with his open praise for political figures and participation in events organised by right-wing groups, challenges the foundational principle of judicial independence. At a time when the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter is crucial, such conduct not only undermines its credibility but also raises pressing questions about accountability within the judicial system. If left unchecked, this trend could have far-reaching consequences for the secular and democratic fabric of the nation.
Justice Yadav’s participation in the VHP-organised event, compounded by his history of ideologically charged judgments, has drawn widespread criticism. The timing of this event, just months after the VHP’s legal cell organised a controversial “Judges Meet” in September 2024—attended by several former judges, including retired Supreme Court Justice Hemant Gupta—has only intensified concerns about the perceived proximity between members of the judiciary and right-wing organisations. Many argue that such associations jeopardise the judiciary’s independence and erode trust in its commitment to constitutional values.
This article was published on SabrangIndia and can be read here.
What an abomination this Judge is .. Pathetic 😞