The Supreme Court collegium is set to hear justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad high court explain his controversial remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event, as the top five judges of the apex court consider options ranging from counselling the judge to taking more decisive measures, including an in-house inquiry, based on the outcome of the deliberations.
Justice Yadav’s purported remarks on December 8, targeting the Muslim community and invoking themes of majority rule and the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), triggered sharp criticism from political and legal circles, raising significant questions about judicial impartiality and propriety.
The meeting of the collegium, originally scheduled for the weekend, was deferred to next week due to the unavailability of two of the five collegium members. It is now likely to take place on Tuesday, December 17.
The focus of the meeting, according to people aware of the matter, is to satisfy the principle of natural justice by allowing the Allahabad high court judge to present his version before the collegium contemplates any action.
“The idea is to hear the high court judge’s version before any decision is taken regarding the episode. The gravity and sensitivity of the issue required intervention by the highest court of the land to ensure that Bangalore principles of judicial conduct are affirmed,” said one of the persons cited above. The Bangalore principles, adopted in 2002, are a set of standards for ethical conduct of judges.
According to the people in the know, the collegium is exploring options ranging from counselling the judge to more concrete measures, depending on the deliberations. “The idea is to ensure fairness in handling the episode while addressing concerns over judicial impartiality,” said another person aware of the discussions. He pointed out that the CJI may also order an in-house inquiry by a committee of judges if the issue requires a deeper probe.
{{/usCountry}}According to the people in the know, the collegium is exploring options ranging from counselling the judge to more concrete measures, depending on the deliberations. “The idea is to ensure fairness in handling the episode while addressing concerns over judicial impartiality,” said another person aware of the discussions. He pointed out that the CJI may also order an in-house inquiry by a committee of judges if the issue requires a deeper probe.
{{/usCountry}}Another person confirmed that the Supreme Court administration has already received a transcript of the speech made by justice Yadav. On December 10, the top court had taken cognisance of reports surrounding his controversial comments, calling upon particulars of the matter from the Allahabad high court for further action.
The controversy stems from justice Yadav’s remarks at a VHP event in Prayagraj on December 8, where he reportedly made contentious statements about the Muslim community, UCC and the role of majority rule in India. Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using slurs and asserting that the country must function according to the wishes of the majority.
Justice Yadav’s remarks included assertions such as: “This is Hindustan, and this country would function as per the wishes of the ‘bahusankhyak’ [majority]” and “Only a Hindu can make this country a ‘Vishwa Guru’.” The comments also addressed issues like triple talaq and halala, with justice Yadav reportedly arguing that these practices should be abolished under the UCC.
Political and legal circles have condemned the speech, viewing it as a deviation from the constitutional mandate of judicial impartiality. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, leading a group of more than 50 opposition MPs, had two days ago submitted a notice in Rajya Sabha seeking justice Yadav’s impeachment, calling his remarks a “grave violation of judicial ethics”. “Such divisive views tarnish the judiciary’s image. If the judiciary does not act, it risks being seen as complicit,” said Sibal.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct, alleging that his remarks violated the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. CJAR’s letter to CJI Sanjiv Khanna called for justice Yadav’s suspension and a time-bound inquiry.
Meanwhile, the VHP defended justice Yadav, claiming his comments were taken out of context. “Justice Yadav simply maintained that the UCC should be implemented across all communities. His views should be seen in the correct context,” Brijendra Singh, regional coordinator of the VHP’s legal cell, said last week.
This is not the first time the judiciary has addressed controversial remarks by judges. In September, the Supreme Court reprimanded a Karnataka high court judge for referring to a Muslim-dominated area as “Pakistan”. The proceedings were closed after the judge issued a contrite apology during the judicial proceedings that were initiated by the court on its own motion.
Justice Yadav has previously made headlines for controversial statements. In October 2021, he urged the government to enact laws honouring Hindu religious texts, including the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and advocated granting fundamental rights to cows. Earlier, he denied bail to a man accused of religious conversion, arguing that such acts weakened the country.