Controversy Erupts: Allahabad HC Judge Justice Shekhar Yadav Under Scrutiny for VHP Event Remarks

Justice Yadav's recent speeches, addressing contentious topics and his alleged statement about "law functioning by majority," have sparked discussions across social media platforms, drawing attention and concern regarding his viewpoints.

P24 News Media

December 15, 2024

1 minute

Controversy Erupts: Allahabad HC Judge Justice Shekhar Yadav Under Scrutiny for VHP Event Remarks

India

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a current judge at the Allahabad High Court, has recently attracted considerable attention due to his remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. Reports indicate that the Supreme Court is set to provide him with an opportunity to clarify his statements as the collegium deliberates on the matter.

On December 10, the Supreme Court acknowledged media reports concerning Justice Yadav's speech during the VHP gathering and has since requested a comprehensive report from the Allahabad High Court regarding the incident. An official statement from the Supreme Court noted that details have been solicited from the high court, indicating that the issue is currently under review.

In accordance with standard protocol, judges implicated in controversies are generally afforded the chance to present their side of the story before the Supreme Court collegium, which is led by the Chief Justice of India.

At the VHP event on December 8, Justice Yadav purportedly stated that the primary intention behind the Uniform Civil Code is to foster social harmony, gender equality, and secular principles. Nevertheless, various clips from his speech have surfaced on social media, revealing him making contentious remarks, including a statement suggesting that the legal system operates according to the majority. He was quoted as saying, “This is Hindustan, and this country would function as per the wishes of the ‘bahusankhyak’.”

These statements have sparked significant backlash, with numerous opposition leaders alleging that his comments constitute hate speech. In response to the situation, over 55 opposition members from the Rajya Sabha have formally requested the impeachment of Justice Yadav, submitting a notice to the secretary general of the Upper House.

In a related development, noted advocate Prashant Bhushan addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India, urging that an in-house investigation be conducted regarding Justice Yadav’s conduct. His correspondence emphasized the necessity for a robust institutional response to help restore public confidence in the judiciary. Bhushan’s letter further implores the Chief Justice to establish an in-house committee tasked with examining allegations of judicial impropriety and calls for the suspension of all judicial duties assigned to Justice Yadav during this inquiry.

The unfolding situation underscores the delicate balance between judicial conduct and public perception. As the Supreme Court takes the necessary steps to address this controversy, the implications for both Justice Yadav and the judiciary at large could be profound. The judicial system is, after all, a cornerstone of democracy, and maintaining the integrity and trust of the public is paramount for its continued credibility.

As the matter progresses, all eyes will be on the responses from both the Supreme Court collegium and Justice Yadav himself, as the resolution of this issue may have lasting consequences for the judicial branch in India. The pursuit of justice relies heavily on public trust, and any perceived deviation from impartiality or fairness can lead to a significant erosion of that trust.

In conclusion, the developments surrounding Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav's remarks and the subsequent reactions from various quarters highlight the ongoing challenges faced by the judiciary in navigating its role within a diverse and pluralistic society. How the Supreme Court chooses to address this situation will undoubtedly serve as a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding judicial accountability and the expectations placed upon those entrusted with upholding justice.