Read Time: 06 minutes
The petitioner defends 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
A Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court challenging an impeachment motion initiated by Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal and 54 other members seeking the removal of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. The petition, moved by advocate Ashok Pandey, argues against the validity of the motion, calling it an attack on the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
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 petitioner contends 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 emphasizes that judges, like other citizens, retain their fundamental rights outside the courtroom.
According to the writ petition, the motion fails 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 petitioner argues that the allegations against Justice Yadav pertain to personal opinions expressed in a private setting, which cannot constitute professional misconduct.
The petition also draws 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 petitioner has urged the court to direct the current motion against Justice Yadav to be dismissed similarly.
The petition underscores what it perceives as a misuse of parliamentary privilege by MPs targeting "honest and efficient judges" for personal or political reasons. It alleges that some MPs may 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 suggests that these remarks were not hate speech but rather reflections of broader societal debates. It also argues that terms such as "kathmulla," reportedly used by Justice Yadav, describe specific orthodox practices and do not meet the legal definition of hate speech.
The petitioner further contends that Justice Yadav’s comments were in line with the sentiments of the majority Hindu community, which should not be mischaracterized as communal bias. The plea calls 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
