The Supreme Court has taken cognisance of a speech by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, received complaints regarding the judge's remarks, which were viewed as targeting a specific community. The Supreme Court has confirmed that details have been sought from the High Court, and the matter is under consideration.
The controversy surrounding Justice Yadav's speech has also reached the Lok Sabha, where MP Asaduddin Owaisi signed a notice calling for the judge's removal. Owaisi highlighted that the judge's statements violated constitutional principles and norms.
He also announced that the notice required 100 signatures from Lok Sabha members to be submitted to the Speaker for further proceedings.
Justice Yadav's remarks, made during a VHP legal cell event, drew sharp criticism for their implications. He stated that India would function according to the wishes of the majority community, referring to Hindus.
He also made contentious comments about another community, questioning their practices and describing certain individuals as harmful to the country. While he clarified that not everyone from the community was problematic, his statements have been widely criticised as biased.
The comments have sparked concern among legal and political circles. CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat and the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) have written to the Chief Justice, urging action against Justice Yadav.
CJAR has called for an in-house inquiry and demanded that all judicial duties be withdrawn from the judge during the investigation. The organisation expressed concerns about the judge's impartiality and neutrality in performing judicial functions.
Brinda Karat, in her letter, strongly criticised Justice Yadav's remarks, stating that they brought disrepute to the judiciary and its credibility. She emphasised that the judiciary must uphold secularism and democracy, and there is no room for individuals exhibiting such prejudice.
Karat argued that no litigant could expect fair justice in a courtroom presided over by a judge holding biased views against minority communities.
Justice Yadav's speech has raised broader questions about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Critics have pointed out that such remarks undermine the judiciary's role as the custodian of constitutional values. Observers believe that the situation calls for decisive action to reaffirm public trust in the judicial system.
Follow us
