Communal Remarks and the Judiciary: Justice Yadav @VHP

In October earlier this year, a new statue of Lady Justice was unveiled in the Supreme Court which had taken off her iconic blindfold. The act was seen by many as symbolically marking the end of judicial impartiality in ‘New India’. Recently, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court gave a rousing speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event that sparked significant controversy and debate regarding judicial conduct and the principles of secularism in India.

On December 8, 2024, Justice Yadav asserted that “India will function as per the wishes of the majority,” referring to the Hindu community, and expressed support for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which aims to standardise personal laws across religious communities.

His comments included derogatory references to the Muslim community, using the term “kathmullah” to describe them and their certain practices he deemed harmful. This utterance has led to widespread criticism from various political leaders, legal experts, and civil rights organisations, who argue that his statements undermine the independence and impartiality expected of a judge and are unbecoming of his office.

The Supreme Court has also taken note of the situation, seeking details from the Allahabad High Court regarding the speech, while calls for Justice Yadav’s impeachment have emerged from opposition parties and legal bodies, citing violations of judicial ethics and constitutional principles.

Meanwhile, the VHP defends the incident stating that J. Yadav was attending the event in his capacity at a legal expert and even members of the judiciary are allowed their personal opinions.

Jargon

Uniform Civil Code (UCC): A proposed set of laws intended to replace personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in India, aiming for equality and uniformity in matters like marriage and inheritance.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP): A right-wing Hindu nationalist organisation in India, affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), known for advocating Hindu cultural and religious values.
kathmullah: A derogatory term used to describe Muslims, considered offensive by many.
judicial impropriety: Actions or statements by a judge that violate the ethical standards expected of the judiciary, potentially undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality.
impeachment motion: A formal proposal to remove a judge from office, requiring a specified number of parliamentary signatures and a process of investigation into alleged misconduct.

Viewpoints 💭

‘Left’ Viewpoint

Ideological Differences

‘Right’ Viewpoint

Justice Yadav’s remarks at the VHP event are seen as a breach of judicial neutrality and an endorsement of majoritarianism, undermining the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution.
Critics argue that his comments, particularly those targeting the Muslim community, amount to hate speech and violate constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
The left emphasises the need for judicial accountability and calls for an inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct, highlighting concerns over the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Opposition leaders and legal experts demand Justice Yadav’s impeachment, viewing his statements as a violation of his judicial oath and an attack on minority rights.
The left criticises the participation of a sitting judge in a politically charged event organised by the VHP, questioning the appropriateness and implications for judicial conduct.

The left perceives Justice Yadav’s remarks as a violation of secularism and judicial impartiality, while the right views them as a necessary alignment with constitutional values and majority sentiments.
While the left calls for an inquiry and impeachment, citing hate speech and bias, the right defends the remarks as a reflection of the majority’s cultural and historical context.
The left emphasises the protection of minority rights and judicial neutrality, whereas the right advocates for legal reforms like the UCC to promote social harmony and gender equality.
Critics from the left argue that Justice Yadav’s participation in a VHP event undermines judicial conduct, while the right sees it as an opportunity to discuss necessary legal reforms.
The left views the remarks as an attack on constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, while the right interprets them as a defence of constitutional morality and human dignity.

Justice Yadav’s support for the Uniform Civil Code is seen as a necessary step towards ensuring social harmony, gender equality, and secularism, aligning with constitutional values.
His remarks are defended as a reflection of the majority’s sentiments, emphasising the need for legal reforms that resonate with the cultural and historical context of India.
The right views Justice Yadav’s comments as a call for the elimination of outdated practices across all communities, advocating for a uniform legal framework.
Supporters argue that his statements are not anti-religious but rather a defence of constitutional values against extremist interpretations of religious laws.
The right emphasises the importance of respecting Hindu culture and traditions, viewing Justice Yadav’s remarks as a progressive step towards aligning religious practices with contemporary human rights standards.

Prominent Voices 📣

From the ‘Left’

From the ‘Right’

Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM Chief and Hyderabad MP): Questioned the impartiality of Justice Yadav and criticised his association with the VHP, supporting the impeachment motion. ¹ ²
Kapil Sibal (Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP): Advocated for the impeachment of Justice Yadav, emphasising the need to uphold judicial integrity and independence, and criticised the process of judicial appointments. ³ ⁴
Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya (AILU President and Rajya Sabha MP): Criticised Justice Yadav’s speech as a violation of constitutional principles and called for action against him. ¹
Ruhullah Mehdi (MP of the Jammu Kashmir National Conference): Advocates for Yadav’s impeachment, arguing that his statements violate constitutional norms and judicial conduct. ² ⁵
Bar Association of India (Legal Body): Condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks as contrary to secularism and a violation of judicial conduct, urging a public disassociation from the event. ⁶ ⁷

P B Sawant (Retired Supreme Court Judge and Patron of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms): Highlighted the necessity of a strong institutional response to maintain public faith in the judiciary’s independence and neutrality. ³
CJAR (Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms): The organisation has complained to the Chief Justice of India about Justice Yadav’s speech, highlighting the use of unpardonable slurs against the Muslim community. ⁸ ⁹
Prashant Bhushan (Advocate and Convenor of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms): Criticised Justice Yadav for using derogatory language against the Muslim community, arguing it undermines the judiciary’s integrity and the rule of law. ¹⁰ ¹¹
Rebecca John (Senior Advocate): Criticised the speech as an attack on constitutional values and called for Justice Yadav’s removal from judicial duties. ⁵ ¹²
P.V. Surendranath (AILU General Secretary): Highlighted the weaknesses of the collegium system in dealing with judicial misconduct. ¹

Show less

Alok Kumar (Vishva Hindu Parishad Chief): Defended the event, stating that judges are invited to discuss constitutional topics like the UCC, not to promote VHP agendas. ¹³ ¹⁴
Shalabh Mani Tripathi (BJP MLA): Endorses Yadav’s views, praising his courage to speak what he considers the truth. ²