New Delhi: Weeks after the Supreme Court took note of Allahabad high court’s Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s derogatory remarks about Muslims at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, it has now sought a fresh report.
According to a report by The Indian Express, the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has written to Allahabad high court chief justice Arun Bhansali seeking an update on the report.
The collegium had met Justice Yadav on December 17, seeking an explanation over his comments at the event of the Hindutva extremist organisation where he made several references to the “ills” in the Muslim society. Since the meeting, however, Justice Yadav has issued no apology or explanation, the Express reported.
In a controversial speech on the subject of Uniform Civil Code delivered in the library hall of the Allahabad high court on December 8, Justice Yadav used the derogatory term “kathmulla” and said that Muslim children could not be expected to be “tolerant” and “generous” as they are exposed to violence – “the slaughter of animals” – from an early stage.
In comparison, Yadav added, Hindus were taught about kindness from an early age and their children had non-violence and tolerance ingrained in them. Referring to the Hindu community, he said that India would function only as per the wishes of the “majority”.
Backlash against Justice Yadav
The remarks drew immense backlash and a statement from the Bar Association of India condemning it. “These remarks are contrary to the principle of secularism as enshrined in the Constitution of India, in flagrant violation of the oath of office of a judge of Constitutional Court and strike at the very foundation of a fair and unbiased judiciary which sustains the Rule of Law,” the legal body said.
Meanwhile, a six-member delegation of opposition MPs in Rajya Sabha submitted an impeachment motion against Justice Yadav to secretary general of the upper house on December 13, 2024, accusing him of engaging in “hate speech” and “incitement to communal disharmony” which is in violation of the Indian Constitution. A PIL challenging the same was dismissed by the Allahabad high court.
Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath, on the other hand, came out in defence of Justice Yadav, saying he had spoken “the truth”.
Also read: Adityanath Defends Justice Yadav’s Majoritarian and Communal Remarks, Says Judge Spoke the Truth
The latest move by the CJI to seek a report from the high court chief justice is being seen as the first step towards initiating an in-house inquiry regarding the alleged misconduct by a judge.
Impeachment of a judge
In a Supreme Court judgement in 1995, the C. Ravichandran Iyer versus Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and Others case, the top court had explored the issue of “the hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable behaviour”.
The case pertained to the allegation of unjustifiably high payments from a publisher to Bombay high court chief justice A.M. Bhattacharya, who eventually resigned. Subsequently, the Supreme Court stated that it “would form a precedent for future” on issues of misconduct by a judge.
“We are of the considered view that where the complaint relates to the Judge of the High Court, the Chief Justice of that High Court, after verification, and if necessary, after confidential enquiry from his independent source, should satisfy himself about the truth of the imputation made by the Bar Association through its office bearers against the Judge and consult the Chief Justice of India, where deemed necessary, by placing all the information with him. When the Chief Justice of India is seized of the matter, to avoid embarrassment to him and to allow fairness in the procedure to be adopted in furtherance thereof, the Bar should suspend all further actions to enable the Chief Justice of India to appropriately deal with the matter,” the judgement read.
“The Chief Justice of India, on receipt of the information from the Chief Justice of the High Court, after being satisfied about the correctness and truth touching the conduct of the Judge, may tender such advice either directly or may initiate such action, as is deemed necessary or warranted under given facts and circumstances. If circumstances permit, it may be salutary to take the Judge into confidence before initiating action. On the decision being taken by the Chief Justice of India, the matter should rest at that,” it stated.
In 1997, a revised code of ethics was adopted in which a full court of the Supreme Court resolved to set up an in-house inquiry mechanism if judges were found to be in violation of ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’.
