Controversy Surrounding Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav's Remarks at VHP Event

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court became the center of a significant controversy following his speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event on December 8, 2024. During his address on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Justice Yadav asserted that India should operate according to the wishes of the majority community, emphasizing that "this country will function according to the wishes of the majority." He further used the term "kathmulla," a derogatory slur for Muslims, describing them as detrimental to the nation and urging caution against them. He contrasted Hindu children's upbringing, highlighting values of kindness and non-violence, with that of Muslim children, whom he claimed are exposed to violence from an early age due to practices like animal slaughter .

These remarks sparked widespread condemnation across political, legal, and civil society sectors. Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal called for Justice Yadav's impeachment, while lawyer Prashant Bhushan and CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat wrote to the Chief Justice of India seeking an in-house inquiry into the judge's conduct . The Bar Association of India also condemned the speech, urging Justice Yadav to retract his statements and apologize, emphasizing that such remarks are unbecoming of a sitting judge and undermine the judiciary's independence .

In response to the backlash, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter, seeking details from the Allahabad High Court regarding Justice Yadav's speech. The administrative side of the apex court emphasized that the matter was under consideration, reflecting the seriousness with which the judiciary viewed the incident .

Further intensifying the situation, two prominent lawyers' groups, the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) and the All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ), demanded action against Justice Yadav. They labeled his remarks as communal, Islamophobic, and reflective of a Hindu majoritarian viewpoint, asserting that such conduct violates the constitutional oath of a judge and the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality .

Despite the mounting criticism, Justice Yadav stood by his remarks. In a letter to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, he argued that his comments were consistent with judicial conduct and constitutional values, claiming they were misconstrued by individuals with vested interests. He refrained from offering an apology, asserting that his statements addressed societal issues in alignment with constitutional values and were not intended to incite hatred .

The controversy also led to administrative actions within the judiciary. The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court altered Justice Yadav's judicial roster, limiting his responsibilities to hearing 'First Appeals' arising from civil court orders dated up to 2010, effectively removing him from handling major bail applications related to rape and sexual offense cases .

This incident has reignited debates about the boundaries of free speech for members of the judiciary, the importance of maintaining secularism and impartiality in judicial conduct, and the mechanisms in place to address potential breaches of these principles. The legal community and civil society continue to watch closely as the judiciary navigates the implications of Justice Yadav's remarks and the broader questions they raise about judicial accountability and constitutional values.