A motion to remove Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav from office was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General on 13th December over his allegedly controversial statements. The motion was signed by 55 members of the Rajya Sabha which is more than the 50 MPs needed to file an impeachment resolution. The motion was submitted by a delegation headed by Kapil Sibal and others including Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, P. Wilson, John Brittas, KTS Tulsi, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale.
The request to begin the process of impeaching Justice Yadav was filed under Article 218 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, of 1968. The motion is anticipated to be discussed during the current Winter Session of Parliament. According to the motion, Justice Yadav “engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India” in his speech and lecture at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. The motion further contended that his comments specifically target minorities, demonstrating bias and prejudice against them. It added that he breached the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1997, by openly voicing opinions on political issues pertaining to the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
The members of parliament have asked Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar to send the motion to the President of India, in line with the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, to form an inquiry committee to look into the accusations of hate speech, judicial ethics violations and communal disharmony. The committee will then begin the appropriate steps to remove Justice Yadav from office if the claims are verified. The Supreme Court also requested a report on Justice Yadav’s remarks from the Allahabad High Court in response to many objections made to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.
“We have given a notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General to impeach Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. He had given an inflammatory speech on 9th December at the High Court premises. We believe that the judge has no right to hold that post and he should be removed. We have moved a motion to remove the judge. This is not a political issue but an issue of protecting the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary. We urge Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and leaders of the ruling party to join us in protecting the Constitution. The Supreme Court should also order the removal of the judge and he should not be assigned any work until a decision is taken on the motion. 55 MPs have signed the motion,” stated Kapil Sibal.
What’s inside the notice
Three accusations are made in their 21-page petition: that Justice Yadav engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution, that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them and engaged in public debate or expressed his views in public on political matters relating to Uniform Civil Code in violation of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life 1997.
The notice read, “On 9th December, Justice Yadav made public remarks during event organised by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) that were inflammatory, prejudiced, and directly targeted minority communities. Justice Yadav, in his lecture has asserted the country would function according to the wishes of the majority (bahusankhyak) in India.” It claimed, “Justice Yadav’s actions contravene the directive principles enshrined in Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India, which mandate promoting harmony and renouncing practices derogatory to the dignity of individuals.”
The notice also charged, “Speech/lecture delivered by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, Judge of the Allahabad High Court, on Sunday i.e. 9th December, in an event organised by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, prima facie shows that Justice Yadav, has engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India.” Furthermore, it added, “That speech/lecture delivered by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, Judge of the Allahabad High Court, on Sunday i.e. 9th Decmber, in an event organised by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, prima facie show evidence that Justice Yadav has targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against the minorities (Katmullah).”
According to the motion for impeachment, he broke both “the secular ethos of the Constitution and the judge’s oath of office.” The assertion that Muslim youngsters cannot be expected to be kind since they are exposed to animal killing at an early age was also met with objection in the motion which claimed that Justice Yadav had damaged public trust in the judiciary through his divisive and biased utterances.
It even charged that his remarks about the Ram Janambhoomi movement are political in nature and affect the judiciary’s independence. “Such statements jeopardise the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbitrator and protector of rights, it leads to a complete lack of faith in a litigant approaching the court with folded hands,” the motion stated. A judge may be dismissed from office for conduct that compromise judicial ethics, impartiality, and public confidence in the judiciary under Articles 124(4) and 124(5) read with Article 217(1)(B) and Article 218 of the Indian Constitution.
The opposition argued that Justice Yadav’s actions were against the fundamental principles outlined in Article 51 A(e) of the Indian Constitution, which call for fostering unity and refraining from actions that diminish human dignity. The petition claimed that the judiciary’s function as a “neutral arbiter” and “protector of rights for all citizens” hasjeopardized by the use of discriminatory terminology against Muslims.
Two communities, two different rules: Judiciary’s version of ‘secularim’
‘Secularism’, the colloquial term for anti-Hindu bias in Indian politics, has also permeated the walls of the judiciary, where anything deemed anti-Muslim could lead to the impeachment of a high court judge while smiling over calls for Brahmin genocide and abusing the majority community for reclaiming their ancient places of worship through legal system, by present and former justices is accepted as normal. Secularism and cohesion in this nation appear to be impacted only when Muslims are purportedly targeted, otherwise, everything appears to be hunky dory when Hindus are subjected to disparaging comments and unwarranted criticism.
Surprisingly, as our esteemed judges have repeatedly demonstrated, attacking the Hindu majority does not contravene either the constitution or the ethics of the judiciary in the secular state of India. Notably, not just incumbent judges but those who retired have voiced similar controversial views. On 6th December, former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Nariman denounced the five-judge panel that rendered the 2019 Ayodhya calling it a “mockery of justice” that went against the fundamental tenets of secularism. Notably, he is also an ordained Parsi priest.
He referred to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s karseva movement as the “dictatorial” and “tyrannical” push for the temple’s construction. The Hindu community was also accused by Nariman of constantly breaking the law during the Ram Mandir movement. A former Supreme Court judge displayed open bias against Hindus and publicly denigrated the most significant legal struggles spanning over 500 years to peacefully regain one of their holiest sites, dismissing both their effort and patience. His remarks are a testament to his ‘impartiality’ as a Supreme Court judge especially when he handled cases related to Hindus.
As if humiliating Hindus for having the audacity to seek legal justice for their ancient temples which were destroyed by Islamic invaders wasn’t enough, Kurian Joseph, another former Supreme Court judge, asked the Chief Justice of India to abandon the Supreme Court’s motto, “Yato Dharmastato Jaya” (Where there is Dharma, there is Victory). He claimed that it deviates from the national motto and, implicitly, the national spirit while speaking at a gathering hosted by left-liberals and the controversial website “The Wire,” in February. “Truth is the Constitution. Dharma is not always the truth. Dharma is the discharge of your duty in terms of the need of the hour,” he alleged.
Notably, he compared the Catholic Church to the Preamble of India in 2018 during a seminar. “The Catholic Church is one that has always assimilated in itself all the traditions and cultures brought in by the believers from all over the world. This is similar to the preamble of our Constitution, which starts with the word ‘We’.” He then addec that the Pope is the “one person who holds this Church in a single entity.”
He disregarded the fact that the Supreme Court functions as a check on the authority of legislative and executive to guarantee that all decisions are in accordance with the nation’s Constitution and its motto represents the division of powers. It’s further interesting to note that our neutral judiciary can compare the “secular” Constitution to the Catholic Church, but, a phrase that is ingrained in the country’s cultural ethos and connects to its historical heritage without any religious connotations should be eliminated since it is inconsistent with the nation’s motto and spirit.
If attacks on Hindu temples, their heritage, and the willingness of the majority to stand up for what was rightfully theirs through legal framework weren’t enough to annoy our judiciary, then grinning at references of genocide and mass murder of a large group of Hindu Brahmins is also part of their repertoire. Former justice of the Supreme Court K. M. Joseph smiled when Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta discussed Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader R Rajiv Gandhi’s statement that one should kill all Brahmins in the name of equality, in March of this year.
How can anyone forget how the sitting justices humiliated Nupur Sharma, a former spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janta Party when she went to the highest court to seek justice after Islamists took to the streets for her blood with “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogans following the dog whistling by Mohammed Zubair of Alt News. Justice Surya Kant criticized her “loose tongue” for the turmoil rather than defending her fundamental right to freedom of speech and safety.
She was even held accountable by Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala for the actions of two Islamists who brutally beheaded Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and flaunted that they had done it for Islam. Why didn’t anyone realize that the top court’s remarks set a very dangerous precedent wherein violence is justified in the name of provocation by someone, particularly a woman? The Supreme Court of India essentially affirmed the Islamic calls for Nupur Sharma’s murder and execution, declaring her guilty of blasphemy which should have caused an uproar among all political parties and the judiciary, but sadly, nothing of the sort occurred.
Conclusion
Most significantly, none of the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha, or even local politicians recognized the threat to secularism in any of the aforementioned incidents. Therefore, no impeachment motion was filed against a single incumbent judge for their controversial opinions.
This is because one of the most obvious characteristics of the Indian version of a secular democracy is the blatant disrespect of Hindus and their religious sentiments. Secularism in India, in fact, flourishes when Hindus are at the receiving end of such abuses. However, everything that is even considered slightly offensive to Islamist sensitivities is actively countered because, in practice, the minority is the only one who benefits from this perverted system, while the majority community bears the brunt of it. The same has been illustrated by the current action initiated against Justice Yadav.
