Judge’s Muslim remark: Lawyers petition CJI; Kashmir MP mulls impeachment motion

The controversial remarks made by Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) have drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, including political leaders, civil rights groups, and the judiciary.

The Supreme Court has taken cognisance of the reports and expressed concern over the implications of such statements on judicial neutrality and constitutional values. In response, widespread demands for Justice Yadav’s dismissal have emerged, with many viewing his remarks as a blatant violation of the principles of secularism and judicial ethics.

Several civil rights groups and legal professionals have written to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, urging immediate disciplinary action against Yadav, with some also calling for his suspension from judicial duties.

During the event, which was held in the library hall of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Yadav made several controversial statements endorsing majoritarian views. Referring to India’s Hindu majority, he asserted that the country should operate according to the wishes of this community.

The speech also included comments targeting the Muslim community, alleging negative cultural influences and promoting divisive narratives. Yadav’s remarks were seen as discriminatory, Islamophobic, and a direct affront to the secular ethos enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The event, organised by the VHP’s legal cell, focused on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a subject Yadav strongly advocated. His remarks criticised Muslim personal laws and cultural practices, describing them as detrimental to national interests. These comments have been condemned by lawyers, civil rights groups, and opposition politicians, who argue that they undermine the principles of equality and impartiality expected from a member of the judiciary.

In response, opposition Member of Parliament Ruhullah Mehdi announced plans to initiate an impeachment motion against Justice Yadav in Parliament. Mehdi, supported by other MPs, claimed that Yadav’s comments constituted hate speech and violated the foundational principles of judicial conduct. The motion has reportedly gained support from prominent leaders of various political parties, further highlighting the gravity of the issue.

Legal and civil society organisations, including the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and the All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ), have called for the withdrawal of all judicial work assigned to Yadav. These groups have demanded the formation of an inquiry committee to investigate his alleged judicial impropriety. The CJAR has accused Yadav of breaching his constitutional oath, while AILAJ described his actions as reflecting open bias and majoritarian ideology, which are incompatible with the responsibilities of a judge.

Leaders from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) have described Yadav’s remarks as an attack on constitutional values and demanded strict action to safeguard the judiciary’s integrity. Civil liberties organisations have warned that such behaviour from a sitting judge erodes public faith in the judicial system and compromises its impartiality.

While opposition leaders and rights groups have criticised the judge, some members of the ruling BJP have endorsed his statements. A BJP legislator from Uttar Pradesh praised Yadav’s views, framing them as courageous and aligned with certain cultural narratives.

Justice Yadav, who is set to retire in 2026, has faced criticism in the past for making controversial statements.