SC seeks fresh report on judge’s derogatory comments targeting Muslims
text_fields
The Supreme Court has taken a step in addressing the controversy surrounding Allahabad High Court’s Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, who made derogatory remarks about Muslims during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. Weeks after the initial backlash, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has requested a fresh report from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Arun Bhansali, regarding the incident.
Justice Yadav's comments, made on December 8, 2024, during a speech on the Uniform Civil Code, included offensive language and accusations that Muslim children are inherently less tolerant and generous due to their early exposure to violence.
In stark contrast, he claimed that Hindu children are raised with values of kindness and non-violence. These remarks sparked widespread condemnation, with critics asserting that they undermine the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution and violate the impartiality expected of a judicial officer.
The Bar Association of India issued a strong statement denouncing Justice Yadav’s comments, arguing that his remarks compromise the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. In response to the growing outrage, a group of opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha submitted an impeachment motion against Justice Yadav, accusing him of hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony. However, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the remarks was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
The situation has garnered political attention, with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath defending Justice Yadav, stating that his comments reflected the truth. This defence has further polarized public opinion, intensifying the debate on judicial conduct and accountability.
The Supreme Court's latest move to seek a report from the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice is seen as a precursor to a potential in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct. This development aligns with the judicial protocols established in previous cases, such as the 1995 Supreme Court judgment in the C. Ravichandran Iyer versus Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee case.
In that case, the Supreme Court explored the distinction between misconduct warranting impeachment and lesser infractions, ultimately establishing a framework for handling complaints against judges.
In response to such incidents, the Supreme Court adopted a revised code of ethics in 1997, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial integrity. The code outlines procedures for conducting confidential inquiries and taking appropriate action when judges violate the established standards of judicial behaviour.