Justice Yadav appears before SC collegium after controversial remarks

The Supreme Court collegium on Tuesday convened a meeting with justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad high court, a rare intervention that was meant to address the latter’s controversial remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event earlier this month.

Justice Yadav’s statements were seen as targeting the Muslim community and invoked themes of majority rule, raising concerns about judicial impartiality and propriety.

The meeting, which took place in Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s chamber, lasted for 30 minutes and was attended by all five collegium members -- Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, in addition to the CJI. Towards the end of the session, justice Yadav was counselled in a one-on-one interaction with CJI Khanna.

According to people familiar with the matter, the collegium reviewed a transcript of justice Yadav’s speech at the VHP event prior to the meeting. During the session, the high court judge was asked to explain his remarks, clarify key aspects of the controversy and bring certain details on record.

“The collegium wanted to satisfy the principles of natural justice by allowing the high court judge to present his version before any further steps are taken,” said a person aware of the proceedings. “Justice Yadav was also counselled during the meeting, which was more than just a formal interaction. He has been asked to address certain questions, after which the collegium will take a final call,” he added.

The controversy erupted on December 8, when Justice Yadav, addressing a VHP event in Prayagraj, reportedly made remarks asserting that India should function according to the wishes of the majority. Video clips of the speech, which have since gone viral, show him using slurs and stating, “This is Hindustan, and this country would function as per the wishes of the ‘bahusankhyak’ [majority],” and “Only a Hindu can make this country a ‘Vishwa Guru’.” He also addressed issues such as triple talaq and halala, calling for their abolition under the UCC.

Justice Yadav’s statements drew condemnation from political and legal quarters for undermining the constitutional principles of secularism and judicial independence. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, supported by over 50 opposition MPs, submitted a notice in Rajya Sabha seeking justice Yadav’s impeachment, citing his remarks as a “grave violation of judicial ethics.” The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also called for an in-house inquiry and his suspension, alleging that his comments breached the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997.

The people in the know of the matter confirmed that Tuesday’s meeting aimed to assess whether justice Yadav’s conduct violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, a global framework for judicial ethics adopted in 2002, or the values laid out in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.

The collegium will explore a range of options, including an in-house inquiry, a reprimand or even a transfer to some other high court, depending on his explanations. According to one of the persons cited above: “The collegium is treading carefully to ensure fairness while addressing concerns about judicial impartiality. Any decision will be taken with due consideration of the sensitivity of the issue.”

CJI Khanna’s one-on-one interaction with justice Yadav, the second person said, was aimed at counselling him about the importance of maintaining judicial neutrality and upholding constitutional values, particularly in the context of public speeches.

While it is unlikely that he will be called to meet the collegium again, a decision on the matter is expected soon.

Justice Yadav has courted controversy in the past as well for his remarks. In 2021, he urged the government to enact laws honouring Hindu religious texts and advocated for granting fundamental rights to cows. In another instance, he denied bail to an accused in a religious conversion case, arguing that such acts weakened the country.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened in similar cases. In September this year, the apex court admonished a Karnataka high court judge for referring to a Muslim-dominated area as “Pakistan.” That matter was closed after the judge apologised unconditionally.

The outcome of this matter could set a precedent for handling allegations of judicial impropriety in the future.