Read Time: 07 minutes
The PIL petitioner, a practicing advocate, defended Justice Yadav’s remarks, claiming they were made in his capacity as a "practicing Hindu" and not as a judge, thereby invoking his fundamental right to free speech
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench today dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging an impeachment motion initiated by Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal and 54 other members seeking removal of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
The petition, moved by advocate Ashok Pandey, argued against the validity of the motion, calling it an attack on the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
The division bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held the PIL not maintainable as it was not on behalf of any vulnerable section or person of the society.
Notably, the motion in question, filed on December 13, 2024, seeks to remove Justice Yadav for alleged hate speech, communal bias, and violations of judicial ethics during a meeting organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on December 8, 2024. The speech, which subsequently went viral, reportedly contained remarks perceived as inflammatory and inappropriate for a sitting judge.
The PIL petition contended that the alleged remarks were made in Justice Yadav’s personal capacity as a Hindu individual participating in a religiously aligned gathering and not in his official capacity as a High Court judge. Highlighting the constitutional provision of free speech under Article 19, the petition emphasized that judges, like other citizens, retain their fundamental rights outside the courtroom.
According to the writ petition, the motion failed to meet the constitutional thresholds for removal under Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Indian Constitution. These provisions stipulate "proven misbehavior or incapacity" as the sole grounds for removing a High Court or Supreme Court judge. The plea argued that the allegations against Justice Yadav pertained to personal opinions expressed in a private setting, which could not constitute professional misconduct.
The petition also drew parallels with a similar motion previously filed against former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra. That motion, spearheaded by Kapil Sibal, was rejected at the preliminary stage by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, citing a lack of substantive evidence. The present petitioner, through the PIL, urged the high court to direct the current motion against Justice Yadav to be dismissed similarly.
Further, the PIL petition underscored what it perceived as a misuse of parliamentary privilege by MPs targeting "honest and efficient judges" for personal or political reasons. It alleged that some MPs might have signed the motion without being fully aware of its contents.
The controversy surrounding Justice Yadav stems from comments he allegedly made criticizing certain Islamic practices and advocating for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code. The petition suggested that these remarks were not hate speech but rather reflections of broader societal debates. It also argued that terms such as "kathmulla," reportedly used by Justice Yadav, describe specific orthodox practices and did not meet the legal definition of hate speech.
The plea further contended that Justice Yadav’s comments were in line with the sentiments of the majority Hindu community, which should not have been mischaracterized as communal bias. The plea called for the dismissal of the motion, warning against setting a precedent where judges' personal views outside their judicial duties are scrutinized to this extent.
Case Title: Ashok Pandey vs. Chairman of Rajya Sabha and Another
Please Login or Register
