Omar Rashid 
New Delhi: A pan-India organisation of lawyers has written to Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud demanding action against a judge in Uttar Pradesh who, while issuing an order in the trial of a 2010 riots case, hailed chief minister Yogi Adityanath for his religious background and blamed Muslims for communal riots in the country.
In a letter to CJI Chandrachud, the All-India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ) also requested that the unnecessary observations made by judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar in his March 5 order be expunged from the record. AILAJ said judge Diwakar’s statements and conclusions in the order were “controversial, prejudicial, bigoted and unconstitutional.”
The lawyers body also accused judge Diwakar of displaying a “sympathy for a majoritarian viewpoint”, contrary to the duty to uphold the constitution and its fundamental values, and blatantly displaying a “disregard for constitutional morality.” This could not go unpunished, said the AILAJ.
Diwakar, additional district judge-fast track court in Bareilly, on March 5 – while invoking serious criminal charges, including attempt to murder, against prominent Muslim cleric-politician Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, for communal violence in Bareilly in 2010 – hailed Adityanath as a great example of a “religious person” occupying the seat of power.
In the same order, judge Diwakar, who had earlier served in Varanasi and passed controversial orders in the Gyanvapi Masjid matter, made a string of seemingly controversial and debatable observations. Not only did he lavish Adityanath with praise for his religious background but he also blamed the alleged “appeasement” of a particular community (Muslims) by political parties for riots in the country and reflected on his own record as a judge in the Gyanvapi Masjid legal battle and claimed that he and his family were living under fear after receiving threats from Muslim groups.
Diwakar described Adityanath as a modern-day example of a ‘philosopher king’, a concept of theocratic ruler propounded by ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his work Republic.
Judge Diwakar further remarked that the “main reason for riots” in India was that “political parties here are engaged in appeasement of a particular religion.” Due to this, the morale of prominent people of that “particular religion” increases to the extent that they believe that even if they cause riots, no harm will fall upon them due to protection provided by power, said Diwakar.
The AILAJ said the observations made by the judge had the “effect of perpetuating misplaced stereotypes and bigoted impressions about the Muslim community.” In making these statements, “which reveal manifest bias and prejudice against the Muslim community,” the judge failed the basic standards of judicial conduct thereby shaking the public’s confidence in the judiciary, said AILAJ.
“…This order has tipped the scales of justice, breached the avowed principle of independence of the judiciary and is damaging to the reputation of the judiciary. It represents an abject failure on the part of the Judge to abide by the standards and norms bearing on judicial officers i.e. to maintain independence, impartiality and propriety,” said AILAJ in its letter.
AILAJ clarified that its objection was not in regard to the judicial order, but solely limited to the “excessive and unnecessary obiter.”
While hearing the 2010 Bareilly riots case, judge Diwakar added Khan’s name in the chargesheet and summoned him to appear before it on March 11. Khan is a prominent cleric of the Barelvi sect and president of the political party Ittehad-e-Millat Council. The judge dubbed Khan as the “main mastermind” of the riots that took place in Bareilly on March 2, 2010, after a dispute broke out over the route of a Muslim religious procession. Several persons were injured and properties damaged in the incident. A curfew had been imposed in the city for several days.
AILAJ also expressed objection to the judge’s direction that a copy of his order be sent to Adityanath so that the chief minister could take action against those senior police officers and officials who allegedly assisted the accused Muslim cleric Khan and did not act as per law at the behest of the then government. UP was then ruled by the Bahujan Samaj Party led by Mayawati.
“Any judicial order passed by the courts has an inescapable significance, not merely for the determination of inter se rights, but also for the impact it has on society and its views,” said AILAJ.
Previous judgements
While serving as a judge in Varanasi in 2022, Diwakar had passed controversial directions regarding the Gyanvapi Masjid. Diwakar, as civil judge senior division, had ordered the sealing of a portion of the Mughal-era Mosque after Hindu plaintiffs claimed that a stone found in the ablution tank there was a “shivling.”
Judge Diwakar had given his nod to the videography inside the Gyanvapi Masjid by a court-appointed advocate commissioner on a petition filed by five Hindu plaintiffs demanding daily access to prayer to an alleged Hindu side. ‘Maa Shringar Gauri’, they claimed, was located outside the western wall of the mosque.
AILAJ requested the CJI to take necessary action against judge Diwakar, including skill development at the judicial academy. The lawyers body said that the judge met what the Supreme Curt had called “parameters for upgradation of skills.”
In his order, judge Diwakar had observed that if a religious person occupies a seat of power, it leads to good results. “Justice is the lifeblood of a king,”said Diwakar, quickly adding that even though, in the present times, the word ‘justice’ was used in the legal sense, during the time of Plato it was used in the context of religion.
“Therefore, the head of power should be a religious person, because the life of a religious person is not one of enjoyment but of sacrifice and dedication. An example of this in today’s times is the peethadeshwar of the great Siddhapeeth Gorakhnath Temple, mahant baba shri Yogi Adityanath ji, who is the current chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, and has proven the above concept to be true,” said judge Diwakar.
On the other hand, however, if any religious person acts contrary to the aforementioned, such as provoking people of this community, then law and order gets disrupted and riots occur, said the judge. Diwakar said an example of this was Maulana Khan.