On 8th December, the sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, attended and spoke at an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) legal cell in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. In his address at the event, he emphasised the cultural and constitutional significance of Bhagwan Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, the urgency of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and the role of the majority in shaping the future of India. In his speech, Justice Yadav covered a wide range of topics, from societal reforms to national unity.
‘Ram Mandir is a testament to sacrifices of our ancestors’
Justice Yadav began his address by paying tribute to the sacrifices made by countless individuals for the construction of Bhavya Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. He said, “Did you imagine seeing the Ram Mandir with your own eyes? Many of our ancestors made sacrifices 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, but now, we are witnessing it (the temple).”
Uniform Civil Code – a promise of unity and justice
He expressed optimism about the implementation of the UCC and assured the audience that the day is not far when UCC will become a reality. He said, “I assure you, you will see this (UCC) bill very soon. The day is not far when it will be clear that if there is one country, there should be one law, and one penal law. Those who try to deceive or run their own agendas will not last long.”
Justice Yadav took an oath in the historic library hall of the Allahabad High Court and declared, “This country will definitely bring a uniform law, and it will bring it very soon.” Referring to the 1985 Shah Bano case in the Supreme Court of India that upheld the right to maintenance irrespective of religion, he called the case a stepping stone for the implementation of the UCC.
‘Majority’s wishes define the law in Hindustan’
Justice Yadav remarked on the principle that the interests of the majority are central to governance in a democracy like India. He said, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan; this country would function as per the wishes of the bahusankhyak (majority) living in Hindustan. This is the law. The law, in fact, works according to the majority. Look at it in the context of family or society… Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted.” He further stressed that such principles ensure the harmony and welfare of society at large.
Reforming women’s rights and ending discrimination
Moving further in his address, Justice Yadav criticised the discriminatory practices that affect women in certain communities and called them unconstitutional. He said, “If you say that our personal law allows this, it will not be accepted. A woman will receive maintenance, bigamy will not be allowed, and a man will have only one wife, not four wives… If one sister receives maintenance and the other does not, then that creates discrimination, which is against the Constitution.”
Justice Yadav strongly condemned practices like Halala and Triple Talaq and said, “You can’t disrespect a woman who has been recognised as a goddess in our Shastras and Vedas. You can’t claim the right to have four wives, perform Halala, or practise Triple Talaq. This right will not work.”
In relation to such practices, he emphasised that UCC is not only supported by organisations like RSS and VHP but that the Supreme Court of India has also advocated for it, suggesting it is a constitutional necessity.
The essence of Hindu identity and cultural respect
In his address, Justice Yadav elaborated on the broad definition of being Hindu. He said, “A person who takes a dip in the Ganga or applies chandan is not the only definition of being Hindu. Anyone who considers this land their mother and is willing to lay down their life for the country in times of crisis, regardless of their religious practices or beliefs, whether they follow the Quran or the Bible, is a Hindu.”
He further underlined the importance of respecting the culture, heritage, and great personalities of India. He said, “It is not expected for Muslims to follow our culture, but it is definitely expected that they do not disrespect the culture of this country, the great personalities, and the God of this land.”
Warning against disruptive elements and societal degeneration
Justice Yadav issued a stern warning against certain elements within society that are disruptive. He referred to such elements as “Kathmulla”, a term usually used for Muslims, who hinder national progress. He said, “The word may be inappropriate, but there is no hesitation in saying it because they (‘Kathmulla’) are harmful to the country. They are people who incite the public, and they are the ones who prevent the country from progressing.”
He further issued a warning that if Indians fail to uphold their cultural values, “It won’t take long for this country to become like Bangladesh or the Taliban.”
On tolerance and upbringing in different communities
He also drew comparisons between how children are raised across communities. He pointed out that values of compassion and non-violence are deep-rooted in Hindu traditions. He questioned, “In our country, we are taught not to harm even the smallest animals, not to kill ants, and this lesson is ingrained in us. Perhaps that is why we are tolerant and compassionate; we feel pain when others suffer. But you do not have this. Why? In your culture, from a young age, children are exposed to the slaughter of animals. How can you expect them to be tolerant and compassionate?”
A call for unity and strength
While concluding his address, Justice Yadav urged the people of India to recognise the significance of their cultural identity and values. He said, “I won’t say ‘ek rahenge to safe rahenge,’ but would say that once these values are realised, no one can harm us.”
Justice Yadav’s statements spark uproar
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s address at the VHP’s event has drawn sharp reactions from the left-liberal cabal. They have accused the sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court of making controversial statements favouring one community over others. His support for the UCC, critique of Islamic practices like Triple Talaq and Halala, and emphasis on the role of the majority in shaping the country triggered outrage to the extent that some demanded action against him by the apex court.
CPI(M), from its official handle on X, wrote, “His speech is akin to hate speech. Justice Shekhar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, addressed a VHP meeting. That he should do so is bad enough. That he should promote majoritarian views and communal hatred is unacceptable. Supreme Court should take suo moto notice and sack him!”
His speech is akin to hate speech. #JusticeShekharYadav, a sitting judge of the #AllahabadHighCourt addressed a #VHP meeting. That he should do so is bad enough. That he should promote majoritarian views and communal hatred is unacceptable. #SupremeCourt should take suo moto… pic.twitter.com/L4FOHTwbFn
— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) December 9, 2024
Social media user Aditi Sharma wrote, “”Our (Hindus) children are non-violent & tolerant because they read Vedas but their (Muslims) children can’t be tolerant as they do animals sacrifice” -Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of Allahabad High Court. With such a biased mindset, how can this judge provide justice?”
"Our (Hindus) children are non-violent & tolerant because they read Vedas but their (Muslims) children can't be tolerant as they do animals sacrifice"
— Aditi Sharma (@Adititweets_) December 9, 2024
-Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of Allahabad High Court
With such a biased mindset, how can this judge provide justice? https://t.co/S8lcY1IDwO pic.twitter.com/10hEkibCDW
TMC MP Mahua Moitra said, “Sitting HC judge attends VHP function, says country will function as per Hindus. And we are celebrating 75 years of our Constitution! Supreme Court, Hon’ble CJI – suo moto cognizance anyone?”
Sitting HC judge attends VHP function, says country will function as per Hindus. And we are celebrating 75 years of our Constitution! Supreme Court, Hon’ble CJI – suo moto cognizance anyone? https://t.co/VpASRR6YaJ
— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) December 8, 2024
In a post on X, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi wrote, “The VHP was banned on various occasions. It is associated with RSS, an organisation that Vallabhai Patel banned for being a ‘force of hate and violence.’
It is unfortunate that a High Court judge attended the conference of such an organisation. This “speech” can be easily rebutted, but it’s more important to remind his honour that the Constitution of India expects judicial independence & impartiality. May I direct his attention to AoR Association vs Union of India “Impartiality, independence, fairness and reasonableness in decision-making are the hallmarks of the judiciary.” The Constitution of India is not majoritarian but a democratic one. In a democracy, the minority’s rights are protected. As Ambedkar put it “…as a King has no Divine Right to rule, so also a majority has no Divine Right to rule.” This speech indicts the collegium system and raises questions on judicial impartiality. How can a minority party expect justice before someone who participates in VHP’s programs?”, Owaisi wrote.
The VHP was banned on various occasions. It is associated with RSS, an organisation that Vallabhai Patel banned for being a ‘force of hate and violence.’
— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 9, 2024
It is unfortunate that a High Court judge attended the conference of such an organisation. This “speech” can be easily… https://t.co/IMce7aYbcf
Just a couple of days before Justice Shekhar Yadav’s address, Owaisi was reposting speech excerpts of former Justice Rohinton Nariman.
The left-liberals condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks and labelled them divisive. They argued that his statements were inappropriate for a sitting judge and reignited debates on judicial propriety and ideological bias among members of the judiciary.
Double standards – Praise for Nariman but outrage over Yadav
Interestingly, the same left-liberal cabal crying foul over Justice Yadav’s remarks lauded former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman for his sharp critique of the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, delivered just days before the VHP event. Justice Nariman, during a lecture for the Ahmadi Foundation on 6th December, two days before Justice Yadav’s address, called the Supreme Court’s ruling on Ram Janmabhoomi a “mockery of justice” and accused the five-judge bench of violating “secularism, which, according to him, is a basic feature of the Constitution.”
Justice Nariman went further, describing the VHP-led karseva movement as “dictatorial” and the demand for the Ram Mandir as “tyrannical.” He claimed that the Places of Worship Act was disregarded in the Ayodhya judgment and criticised notices being served to mosques and dargahs, terming them “hydra heads” that could incite communal discord. He argued that the strict enforcement of the 1991 law, which prevents Hindus from pursuing historical claims, is the only way to ensure communal harmony.
Despite his harsh criticism of Hindus, Justice Nariman was widely celebrated by the left-liberal ecosystem. This stark contrast in the reception of similar issues, depending on the speaker and their stance, highlights the ideological bias prevalent among left-liberal circles. Justice Yadav’s call for cultural respect and constitutional uniformity was branded divisive, whereas Justice Nariman’s pointed remarks, which dismissed centuries of injustice faced by Hindus, were applauded as progressive.
The selective outrage undoubtedly raises questions about the deep-rooted ideological bias among left-liberals. Justice Nariman’s statement that “secularism would only have been upheld if Hindus had abandoned their claim” underscores the one-sided expectations placed on the Hindu community. His criticism of notices to mosques and dargahs, without acknowledging the historical destruction of Hindu temples, further reveals the hypocrisy of those claiming to champion secular values.
Former Justice Nariman also expressed disappointment over the failure to rebuild a mosque on the disputed site after the demolition of the Babri structure, calling it a “travesty of justice.” However, he overlooked the fact that Hindus adhered to the legal process for decades, seeking rightful ownership of their place of worship. Had the Hindu community acted outside the law, the disputed structure known as the “Babri Masjid” would not have stood until 1992, nor would the Ram Mandir have been planned nearly three decades later, only after the court ruled in favour of the Hindu community.
Late Fali Nariman celebrated his son’s priesthood but criticised Yogi’s
There are certain elements of irony about the whole secularism sermon by Nariman. Former Justice Rohinton Nariman’s father, the late Fali S Nariman, once criticised Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath becoming the head of the state because he is a Hindu priest. He claimed that CM Yogi’s appointment was a threat to secularism.
However, he completely ignored the fact that his son, Justice Rohinton Nariman, is himself a Parsi priest. Rohinton was ordained at the age of 12 and performed religious ceremonies. He has credited his priesthood for shaping his life and career.
The starkly different receptions to Justice Yadav and Justice Nariman’s statements expose a deep-seated bias within sections of the left-liberal ecosystem. While one judge is vilified for his calls to respect the Constitution and cultural heritage, another is glorified despite undermining the historical and legal struggles of a community. This selective appreciation serves as a glaring example of the hypocrisy that continues to plague public discourse on India’s socio-religious landscape.
