Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

Thirteen senior advocates have written a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and other judges of the Collegium on 17th January, urging to take suo motu notice of a controversial speech delivered by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event.

While highlighting the seriousness of the issue, the CJI has been requested to direct the CBI to register an FIR against Justice Yadav in accordance with the law.

"It has been brought to public notice and is widely reported that a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, namely Justice Shekhar Yadav, addressed a gathering on December 8, 2024. The said gathering was organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) legal cell within the library premises of the Allahabad High Court. The contents of his speech, recorded and widely disseminated, have been characterized as hate speech, containing remarks that appear unconstitutional and contrary to the oath of office taken by a judge", the letter said.

Addressed to the CJI via the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, the letter criticised Justice Yadav's speech for drawing a stark and inflammatory distinction between two religious communities, emphasising that such blatantly divisive rhetoric undermines judicial impartiality.

Moreover, the letter pointed out Justice Yadav's assertion that Hinduism inherently possesses the seeds of tolerance, which he argued Islam lacks. "Justice Yadav characterized Muslims as lacking generosity (“udaar”) and tolerance (“sahishnu”), alleging that “their” children are raised with a propensity for violence (“hinsa ki pravritti”). Such remarks are not only factually baseless but also dangerously inflammatory. He went on to say that Hinduism had the seeds of tolerance which Islam didn’t," the letter added.

While referring to a report in The Indian Express, the letter further noted that Justice Yadav has stood by his remarks. Citing a report from The Leaflet, the letter adds that the proposal to appoint Justice Yadav to the Allahabad High Court was strongly opposed by the former Chief Justice of India, Dr DY Chandrachud, who had written a letter to the then Chief Justice of India , in his capacity as the consultee judge, citing Yadav’s inadequate work experience, his links with the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and, most importantly, his closeness to a (then) BJP Rajya Sabha member of Parliament, who is currently a minister in the Union cabinet.

In light of this, the senior advocates raised serious concerns about the judiciary's role as the guardian of constitutional values, including equality and fraternity for all Indians, regardless of community or creed. It further added that Justice Yadav’s speech bears the imprints of multiple offences under Sections 196 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in the K. Veeraswami case, the letter stated that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC against a High Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, or a Supreme Court judge unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. In view of this, the letter seeks the intervention of the CJI.

On 7 January, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench 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.  

In December 2024, Members of the opposition in Rajya Sabha has submitted a notice to impeach Allahabad High Court Justice Shekhar Yadav for his remarks made at an event organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) legal cell in the Library Hall on the High Court premises.

Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said a notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General to impeach Allahabad High Court has been given. The motion has been signed by several prominent figures, including Congress leaders P Chidambaram, Digvijaya Singh, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, and Randeep Singh Surjewala; AAP’s Sanjay Singh and Raghav Chadha; TMC’s Saket Gokhale among others.

Bar Association of India has also condemned remarks made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court in a resolution passed during an emergency executive meeting.

During his address at the event on the subject of "Constitutional Necessity of Uniform Civil Code",  Justice Yadav stated "I have no hesitation in stating that this is Hindustan, and this country will function according to the wishes of the majority living here. This is the law".

In addition to this, Justice Yadav without naming any community also stated that "not everybody from this community is bad, but [derogatory terms] are fatal for the country. You shouldn't let this desire inside you die down...otherwise, it won't take very long for it to become Bangladesh and Taliban. It is important to publicise it among people that they should recognise themselves and their religion".

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has also called for the impeachment of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, criticizing the judge’s speech for its 'communal undertones' and urged members of the ruling government as well to support the move for his impeachment.

Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has also stepped into the fray, writing to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and demanding an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav. The organization described his speech as carrying “communal overtones” and accused him of making “unpardonable slurs against the Muslim community.” CJAR further recommended the immediate withdrawal of judicial work assigned to Justice Yadav.

In a related move, the Supreme Court has taken note of the controversy, directing the Allahabad High Court to submit a detailed report on Justice Yadav’s remarks.

With the Supreme Court’s intervention and mounting public scrutiny, the case is expected to have far-reaching implications.

Here is a closer look at what he actually said.