A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against an impeachment motion submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General by 55 Members of Parliament, which sought to remove Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav for his speech at an event hosted by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (Legal Cell) in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh on 8th December was rejected by the Allahabad High Court on 7th January.
Advocate Ashok Pandey’s plea was dismissed by a bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi after the bench verbally expressed dissatisfaction with its maintainability. Justice Vidyathi stated, “How this PIL plea is maintainable. Can a PIL plea be filed in this case? The PIL could lie only when the cause is for a vulnerable section of the society.” Additionally, Justice Masoodi pointed out that the court will not consider the request unless it is satisfied with its maintainability.
The petitioner attempted to respond by arguing that the primary issue was whether judges have the fundamental right to free speech and expression. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the judge is not vulnerable and can approach the court if required. As a result, the court rejected the motion.
The plea asked for a direction to the Rajya Sabha Chairman to rule against the motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav that was filed by Kapil Sibal and fifty-four other Members of Parliament. According to the appeal, Justice Yadav spoke in his role as a Hindu on subjects that are important to the community and have an impact on their daily lives. It further highlighted that as the meeting’s attendees were exclusively Hindu, the comments spoken there could not be classified as hate speech under the guidelines set forth for such public gatherings.
It added that the use of the word “Kathmu**ah” in his address did not qualify as hate speech and added that he was only voicing his viewpoint, perhaps as a person whose friends or family had endured physical and psychological abuse as a result of “Kathamu**apan.”
It prayed, “He may be a person whose some of relation or friends have faced torcher due to some incidents of love jihad. He may be a sensitive person who is aggrieved with the legal permission the Muslims to marry as many as ladies they want without attraction of any penal or civil consequence, he may be a person who moves on the road with open eyes and sees the girl child aged even five to six years going to school with hizab.”
The plea then added, “As an advocate and the judge he might have got the information that how the Kathamu**apan is stopping the muslim girls from going to school and college or how the Muslim ladies are being compelled to wear Hizab and Burka by Kathamu**a’s. He could be expressing a grievance against the Kathamullapan of certain Muslims who, by standing with Babar, obstructed the construction of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple for a long time and continued to align with the actions of Aurangzeb at the Shri Kashi Vishwanath temple and the temple at Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi.”
Furthermore, it submitted that judges have the same fundamental right to free speech and expression as protected by Article 19 of the Constitution. As a result, any statements made by a judge outside of the courtroom cannot serve as justification for dismissal. It maintained that the MPs who made the proposal were clearly abusing their position, and in addition to rejecting the resolution, they ought to be cautioned not to do so in the future.
It further conveyed, “Such a warning is required as the leader of this group means Sri Kapil Sibal is in habit of dictating terms to the judges and those who don’t follow it, motion to remove them is moved.” It mentioned that the application presented to the RS does not explain how Justice Yadav’s remarks during his meeting with some members of the Dharm, to which he belongs, will be interpreted as evidence of proved misconduct or incapacity.
Justice Shekhar Yadav’s judicial roster was altered by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court four days after his statement, and the alterations took effect on 16th December. He was also summoned by the Supreme Court Collegium to clarify his position on the matter after the apex court took cognisance of his speech on 10th December.
“Lekin yeh jo kathmullah hai jo…yeh sahi shabd nahi hai…lekin kehne mein parhez nahi hai kyunki woh desh ke liye bura hai…desh ke liye ghatak hai, khilaaf hai, janta ko bhadhkane wale log hai…desh aage na badhe is prakar ke log hai…unse saavdhaan rehne ki zaroorat hai (But these kathmullah… this may not be the right word… but I won’t hesitate to say it because they are harmful to the country…they are detrimental, against the nation, and people who incite the public. They are the kind of people who do not want the country to progress, and we need to be cautious of them),” the judge had stated during the event.
