Taking note of reports on a speech by Allahabad HC judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Supreme Court Tuesday sought details from the High Court.
Addressing the event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on the court premises on Sunday, Justice Yadav made strong remarks on Muslim marriage practices and backed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
“You can’t disrespect a woman who has been recognised as a goddess in our Shastras and Vedas. You can’t claim the right to have four wives, perform halala, or practice triple talaq. You say, we have the right to say ‘triple talaq’, and not give maintenance to women.
According to a VHP press release, the judge also spoke in favour of the UCC. “Having different Constitutions for people of different communities and religions in a country is no less than a danger to the nation. When we talk of human uplift, it should rise above religion and should be within the ambit of the Constitution,” the press release quoted him as saying.
“If the interests of a woman are to be protected, whether it is about her wealth, her maintenance, her rightful share in the property, her remarriage, or her freedom to choose a partner, the limits of all these things should be decided within the ambit of one Constitution,” he said.
Justice Yadav said the Constitution does not permit that interests of “Muslim women be determined separately or interest of women of other religions be determined by a different method”.
His remarks led to an uproar and sources said the Supreme Court Tuesday sought details from the High Court and the matter was under consideration.
NGO Citizens for Judicial Accountability and Reforms wrote to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, seeking “constitution of in-house enquiry for initiating appropriate action against Justice Yadav… for judicial impropriety, breaching his solemn oath as a judge, and violating the code of conduct for judges.”
It said that “on December 8, Justice Shekhar Yadav participated in and spoke at the provincial convention of the VHP’s law Cell (Kashi Province) in the Library Hall of the High Court Bar, held within the Allahabad High Court premises… where he has made both direct and veiled attacks against India’s Muslims”.
This, it said, “goes against the constitutional ideals that a Judge swears allegiance to and a constitutional court’s crucial role as a countermajoritarian institution”.
“Justice Yadav also used unpardonable and unconscionable slurs against the Muslim community, bringing shame and disrepute to the High Office of a Judge of the Allahabad High Court and the Judiciary as a whole besides undermining the rule of law, he is meant to uphold,” the letter said.
AIMIM chief and Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisiin a post on X, said, “I have signed a notice seeking removal proceedings against Shekhar Yadav, judge of Allahabad High Court. The process was initiated by (Srinagar MP from National Conference) Ruhullah Mehdi. The judge’s behaviour violates constitutional norms, including the Supreme Court’s ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’. The notice requires the signature of 100 Lok Sabha Members to be considered by the Speaker.”
Speaking to The Indian ExpressSyed Ruhullah Mehdi said, “His (Justice Yadav) speech is self-explanatory to say why an impeachment motion should be moved against him. His speech was communally charged. He has violated multiple sections of the law.”
Mehdi said he has already spoken to MPs of Congress, TMC, SP, DMK and they have given positive responses. Mehdi is hopeful of getting the requisite signatures of 100 members of the House and moving the motion in the current session.
CPM leader and former MP Brinda Karat, in a letter to the CJI, expressed grave concern on the speech by Justice Yadav.
“Honourable Chief Justice, Judges take their oath on the Constitution of India. This speech is a violation of that oath. This speech is a hate speech. This speech is an assault on the Constitution. 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,” Karat wrote in the letter, adding that “there can and should be no place for such persons in a court of justice”.
