Vice-Presidential Race Erupts: Justice Sudarshan Reddy Slammed for Meeting Fodder Scam Convict Lalu Prasad Yadav

The Vice-Presidential candidature of former Supreme Court judge B. Sudarshan Reddy, nominated by the I.N.D.I.A. alliance, has drawn significant attention after reports of his private meeting with Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad Yadav. Mr. Yadav stands convicted in the fodder scam involving the embezzlement of nearly ₹940 crore of public funds.

The meeting has been criticised by over 25 senior advocates and former Bar Council leaders who described it as a serious lapse in judgment. Their statement observed that Mr. Yadav is neither a Member of Parliament nor part of the Vice-Presidential electoral college, which makes the meeting politically irrelevant and of questionable propriety.

Soon after, at least eight retired High Court judges issued a joint letter voicing similar concerns. They noted that for a former Supreme Court judge and a nominee for one of the nation’s highest constitutional offices, such an association raises questions about propriety and public trust. The letter characterised the meeting as a fundamental error in judgment that must be evaluated by the public.

The criticism has also revived a broader conversation about the role of retired judges in political discourse. Justice Madan B. Lokur has in the past been criticised for participating in platforms aligned with opposition narratives, while Justice Oka’s observations have often been amplified in political debate. These instances, together with the present controversy, have contributed to concerns that some members of the judiciary, after retirement, risk being viewed more as participants in political discourse than as neutral voices.

The statements by the legal community highlight another important aspect: the silence of groups that regularly invoke constitutional morality in other contexts. This uneven response, according to the critics, underscores the need for consistency when questions of propriety and public conduct are raised.

As the Vice-Presidential election approaches, Justice Reddy’s decision has therefore become more than an isolated episode. It is being treated as a matter of constitutional propriety and public accountability, particularly because the office he seeks demands the highest levels of independence and impartiality.