New Delhi: There have been widespread demands calling for the dismissal of Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after he delivered a communal speech endorsing extremist majoritarian Hindutva views at an event organised by the contentious outfit Vishva Hindu Parishad on December 8.
Lawyers and civil rights groups have written to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna demanding disciplinary action against Yadav and suspension of his work. The Supreme Court has said it has taken note of reports.
Meanwhile, opposition MP from Srinagar, Ruhullah Mehdi said he was moving an impeachment motion in parliament against the judge for his comments described by many as “hate speech.”
On the other hand, a Bharatiya Janata Party MLA in Uttar Pradesh, Shalabh Mani Tripathi, who was the media advisor of chief minister Adityanath, has endorsed Yadav’s views.
Kathmulla, and more
Addressing an event organised by the VHP in the library hall of the Allahabad high court, Justice Yadav on Sunday (December 8) said that India would function only as per the wishes of the “majority,” referring to the Hindu community, and fell just short of endorsing the Bharatiya Janata Party’s provocative slogan calling for Hindu unity, ‘Ek rahenge toh safe rahenge.” He even used the controversial term “kathmulla” to refer to a section of Muslims who engaged in practices such as having four wives and triple talaq, describing them as “fatal” to the nation.
In the controversial 34-minute long speech,Yadav made several references to the “ills” in the Muslim society, commenting 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 said, Hindus were taught about kindness from an early age and hence their children had non-violence and tolerance ingrained in them.
The judge, who has made controversial observations in the past too, compared Muslims and Hindus, painting the former in a negative light. Hindus, he said, were taught compassion from an early age. “Maybe that’s why we are tolerant and giving. We feel pain seeing someone else’s pain. But you (Muslims) don’t feel it. Why? Because our kids, since the time they are born, are pushed towards God, they recite mantras and Vedas and are told about non-violence. But in your culture, kids, from their childhood, are exposed to the slaughter of animals. How do you expect that the child will be tolerant and generous?” Yadav asked.
Seven signatures for impeachment
Ruhulla Mehdi, an MP of the Jammu Kashmir National Conference, said he was moving an impeachment motion in parliament for the removal of Yadav. Mehdi, who needs signatures of 100 members to move this motion, said he had the signatures of seven, including Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi, CPIML (Liberation) MP from Bihar, Sudhama Prasad, and Samajwadi Party MP from Sambhal, Zia-ur-Rehman Barq.
While endorsing Mehdi’s proposed notice, Owaisi said the “judge’s behaviour violates constitutional norms, including the Supreme Court’s ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.’”
In his notice, Mehdi said that the statements and actions of Yadav constitute a violation of the foundational principles of judicial conduct and the constitutional mandate. His continued tenure is detrimental to the integrity, impartiality, and secular ethos of the judiciary, said the notice.
‘Affront’: Brinda Karat to CJI
In a letter to the CJI, Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat described Yadav’s comments as “hate speech,” “an assault on the Constitution,” and “an affront to the collective conscience of a secular and democratic country.”
Karat said that “there can and should be no place for such persons in a court of justice.”
“Such a member brings disgrace to the bench, to the court, to the judicial system as a whole,” she said, seeking action against the judge.
Also read: Supreme Court Takes Note of HC Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s Communal Speech at VHP Event
CJAR asks for inquiry
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), through its convenor and senior lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan, wrote to CJI Khanna demanding the setting up of an in-house inquiry committee to enquire into the acts of judicial impropriety and breach of judicial oath by Yadav.
Bhushan also demanded that all judicial work be withdrawn from Yadav till the completion of the enquiry against him. Justice Yadav’s blatantly-communal statements “betray his inability to act with fairness, impartiality and neutrality in the discharge of his judicial functions,” said the CJAR.
In his letter, Bhushan said that Yadav used “unpardonable and unconscionable spurs 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.”
Justice Yadav’s participation in the VHP event as well as his statements were in gross violation of Articles 14, 21, 25 & 26 read with the Preamble of the Constitution, said Bhushan.
“They are discriminatory and violate the basic principles of secularism and equality before the law that is ingrained in our Constitution. Such communally charged statements at a public event, by a sitting judge of the High Court, not only hurt religious sentiments but completely erode faith of the general public in the Integrity and impartiality of the judicial institution,” the CJAR said.
‘Open bigotry’: AILAJ
The All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ), a pan-India organisation of lawyers, wrote to CJI Khanna seeking urgent disciplinary action against Yadav and the withdrawal of all his administrative and judicial work. AILAJ said Yadav’s comments amounted to “open bigotry, prejudice and unconstitutional conduct unbecoming of a judge of the High Court”.
Also read: Hindutva Jurisprudence and a Gauntlet Thrown Down at Chief Justice Khanna
AILAJ said Yadav’s views were “communal, Islamophobic and reflect a Hindu majoritarian viewpoint, mirroring that of the organisers of the event.”
Yadav displays a “troubling disregard to his oath pledging allegiance to the Constitution,” AILAJ said, adding that the judge had “fallen short of being impartial” and had brought his own integrity under question. “To state that the country would function as per the wishes of the majority, is in simple terms, Hindu majoritarianism.
The Indian constitution, “obviously, does not countenance any form of majoritarianism, which is the antithesis of democracy,” said AILAJ.
Justice Yadav, who retires in 2026, was delivering a lecture on the Uniform Civil Code titled “Uniform Civil Code–A Constitutional Imperative” organised by the legal cell of the VHP, a far-right Hindutva branch of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh often known for targeting Muslims and Christians. Throughout his speech, Yadav argued in favour of a UCC and pitched for changes in the Muslim personal laws.
‘Tone of a politician’: PUCL
The People’s Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) also wrote to CJI Khanna demanding that judicial work be withdrawn from Yadav, saying that his remarks showed his “total lack of faith in the Constitution which is a serious breach of constitutional morality.”
Justice Yadav “had spoken in a virtual tone of a political leader and not as a constitutional functionary under the bounds of oath of the Constitution of India,” the PUCL said.
The civil liberties group also asked CJI Khanna to take necessary steps against Yadav for “reinstating faith of people in the Indian judicial system.”
‘Wishes of the majority’
While asserting to the audience that their Hindu identity was their primary identity, Justice Yadav on Sunday assured the VHP gathering that like the Ram Mandir was constructed in Ayodhya after years of “sacrifices by our ancestors,” the Uniform Civil Code would also become a reality soon.
“Did you imagine seeing the Ram Mandir with your own eyes? But you did see it. Many of our ancestors made sacrifices for it, in the hope of seeing Ram Lalla freed and witnessing the construction of a grand temple. They couldn’t see it but did their part and now we are witnessing it,” said Yadav. On similar lines, he said, the country would soon get a UCC. “That day is not very far,” he assured the audience.
He said that India should function according to the wishes of the “majority,” meaning Hindus.
“This is the law. You can’t say that I am saying this being a high court judge. The law works according to the majority. Be it in the context of the family or society. Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted,” said Yadav.
BJP MLA Shalabh Mani Tripathi, endorsed Yadav’s views. “‘Kathmullas are fatal for the country, we must beware of them–Justice Yadav’ You need courage to speak the truth. Salute to Shri Krishna vanshi Yadav ji (descendant of Shri Krishna),” said Tripathi.
In another post on X, Tripathi shot off a “salute” to Yadav for “speaking the truth.” “In our culture, when a child is born, we take him to God and teach him Vedic mantras. In their culture, mute creatures are ruthlessly slaughtered in front of children. Salute to Justice Shekhar Yadav for speaking the truth,” said Tripathi.
