Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav’s recent remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event have ignited a storm, but is the controversy genuine or fueled by selective reporting? From advocating for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to calling out harmful practices across communities, his statements challenge societal norms. Here’s a closer look at what he actually said, and why it deserves a fairer hearing.

A Hindu Beyond Religion

Justice Yadav redefined the term “Hindu” with an inclusive vision. “A Hindu is not merely someone who worships Hindu gods, puts Tilak on the forehead, or takes a dip in Ganga; it includes any citizen who loves the country as his mother and is committed to protecting it, whether they follow the Bible, the Quran, or any other faith,” he stated.

On VHP, RSS, and Being a Hindu

He added that identifying with organizations like the VHP or RSS does not signify animosity towards other religions but reflects a commitment to the nation and its cultural ethos.

“If I speak about the VHP, RSS, or identify as a Hindu, it does not mean I harbor differences with other religions. My only expectation is that this is India, and all who live here respect our culture, its deities, and its traditions,” he said. 

Uniform Civil Code: Equality for All, Not Division

Justice Yadav’s strong endorsement of the UCC is being cast as controversial, but his logic is clear and rooted in constitutional principles. “When the nation is one, and the Constitution is one, why can’t the law be the same for everyone?” he questioned. He further dismantled arguments against reforming personal laws by highlighting practices like halala and triple talaq, stating that “Respect for women is paramount in this country. Customs such as having multiple wives, practicing halala, triple talaq, or refusing maintenance to women cannot be continued anymore.”

Challenging Double Standards

Justice Yadav did not shy away from comparing societal reforms within Hinduism to the lack of similar progress in other communities. “Hindu society also had practices like sati and child marriage, which were challenged by reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. These customs were eradicated because society acknowledged them as harmful. However, similar practices like halala or triple talaq within the Muslim community could not be dared to be challenged,” he said.

His message was clear: self-reflection and reform are essential for all communities. “If such reform is possible in Hindu community, why should other communities not rid themselves of harmful customs, regardless of their origin?”

Calling Out Extremism

Perhaps the most contentious remark was his warning against extremist elements, which he referred to as “kathmullas.” While media outlets have seized on this term to paint him as anti-Muslim, Justice Yadav’s statement explicitly distinguished between progressive Muslims and those who mislead the youth and obstruct the nation’s progress.

“Not all are bad—many are progressive and aligned with the nation's ethos. However, we must be cautious of 'kathmullas,' those extremists who mislead the youth and pose a threat to the country's progress,” he clarified.

Women’s Rights Above All

Justice Yadav made an unflinching case for women’s rights, asserting that maintenance is a fundamental entitlement. “A woman has a fundamental right to receive maintenance if her husband divorces or separates from her. If you claim this is not in your Shariat, I must assert my stance without hesitation, regardless of how it is portrayed in the media tomorrow,” he said.

Justice Yadav’s Challenge to the Media

"I am a High Court Judge but I'm also a citizen of this country. So whatever is appropriate for the country, I will say it,” he declared unapologetically.

Rewriting the Narrative

Justice Yadav’s remarks represent a bold stance on equality and reform, but the media’s selective reporting risks distorting his intent. By focusing on a few controversial phrases, the broader message—one of unity, inclusivity, and social progress—is being overshadowed.

Is Justice Yadav being questioned for speaking uncomfortable truths? His words demand a deeper, more honest analysis.