Judiciary's sense of justice is challenged

A high court judge has outshined in hate speech even Sakshi Maharaj, Swadhi Pragya Singh and other Hindutva activists notorious for hate speech with his language and style, shocking no wonder the secular community of the country. Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav opened up his morbid mind addressing an event organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), which is notorious for its communal activities and exertions. Following which, Indian Lawyers Union has written to President of India and the Supreme Court Chief Justice seeking action against Yadav. CPM politburo member Vrinda Karat and other notable persons also raised the same demand to the President and Chief Justice. Perhaps no serving judge in independent India’s history ever so showered obscenities on the country’s largest minority community. Here is a sample from his speech: ‘There is no hesitation to say that this country is Hindustan. The law works according to the majority. Be it in the context of the family or society. Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted. These kathmullas are fatal to the nation. Beware of these people who do not wish for the country’s progress. Muslims consider having multiple wives is a right’. Although not explicitly stated, there are however not so insignificant examples of people covertly harbouring hatred towards minorities having been recruited to judiciary, which according to the Constitution should be independent, and they hand out orders even in controversial cases based on this attitude.

Pointing to the inappropriateness of judges appointing judges a proposition was raised in the parliament seeking to replace Collegium with an alternative system. But the Supreme Court took a stance against it. If that is the appropriate way, the apex court should ensure the selection of judges is hundred percent fair and just. It is not often the case and is pointed out not citing the only example of Shekhar Kumar Yadav. Here is a significant question why courts hand out orders that do not do justice to the principles of Constitution in the cases where Hindu organizations and representatives question ownership and use of places of worships by religious minorities. In the Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi case that vexed the country for several decades the Supreme Court in its final judgment allotted the land to the Hindu outfits respecting the sentiments of the majority community, while unequivocally pointing out that historically and archaeologically their claim had no validity. The court in the same verdict categorically stated there should not be any change to the possession of places of worship as of August 15, 1947. What then! Hindutva outfits have raised claims for 12 ancient mosques including Gyanvapi in Varanasi, Idgah in Mathura, Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. The courts have granted permission to ASI to investigate the matters. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave recently furiously said that the pivotal reason behind all these claims stemmed from the former Supreme Court Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s verdict that Temple 1991 worship Act does not bar fact-finding by Archaeological Survey in the Gyanvapi. The courts in UP granting permission to similar petitions ditches their impartiality. Add to this the selection of Mahila Morcha President of BJP in Tamil Nadu as judge. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s hate speech not only underlines the judiciary’s tilt to the right wing but it also points to the damage causing to its unique trustworthiness. Hence, the lawyers union and notable personalities have written to the Chief Justice and the President seeking action. Alongside calling Justice Yadav’s speech a clash with fundamental principles of secularism, the Lawyers Union also termed it as a breach of oath while looking it as an attempt to undermine the judiciary from within. Ignoring this strong objection could lead to unbearable impact to the justice and impartiality of judiciary.