Latest news with #ShekharKumarYadav
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Justice Yadav's anti-Muslim rhetoric is not an impeachable offence
Why Justice Yadav's anti-Muslim rhetoric is not an impeachable offence The push to impeach Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad HC for a speech attacking Muslim practices is a good time to rethink the notion of blasphemy laws in a modern society
New Indian Express
11-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Sibal questions Dhankhar's 'inaction' after SC drops probe into Allahabad HC judge
NEW DELHI: Amid reports that the Supreme Court dropped its investigation against Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav following an intervention from the Rajya Sabha, Upper House MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has not taken any action on the notice seeking an impeachment motion against the judge. Addressing media in the capital, Sibal, who is also a senior advocate and SCBA president, said the whole incident smacks of 'discrimination.' He alleged that the government is attempting to save the judge after he made 'entirely communal' remarks last year. 'On one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to the Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, which was not done in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma,' he said. 'Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him,' he said. Speaking on the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Yadav of Allahabad HC on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Speaking at a VHP event, he had stated that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'Bahusankhayak' (majority) and that the Uniform Civil Code would soon become a reality.
Hindustan Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
A critical test for institutions
The Supreme Court stopped short of instituting an internal probe into the conduct of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, following a March letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat raising issues of jurisdiction, this newspaper reported Monday. The letter reiterated the process as referred to by Rajya Sabha chairperson and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar previously in February in Parliament — that only Parliament and the President have the jurisdiction to proceed against the judge, who is in the dock for alleged hate speech against Muslims delivered in December 2024. Even as the Supreme Court took note of that speech, a group of 55 opposition MPs filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics'. As per the law, the removal of a high court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must go through Parliament. The chairperson will now have to decide on the admissibility of the motion and if an inquiry needs to be held. The Rajya Sabha chairperson, who has been vocal about judicial integrity and institutional probity, should ensure that the complaint against the judge is now processed in a transparent manner and concluded before the judicial officer retires in April next year. A timely closure in the matter is necessary to ensure that there is no reputational damage to the judiciary, Parliament, or the concerned judge, in case he is found innocent of the alleged hate speech. Interestingly, while Justice Yadav, reportedly, regretted his conduct and assured the Supreme Court collegium that he will render a public apology in a closed-door meeting with it in December, he has not issued one and instead defended his speech, delivered in a meeting of Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists in Prayagraj, as reflecting India's cultural ethos. A judge is bound by oath to protect constitutional values, not articulate majoritarian sentiments or populist views, even if they are part of some perceived cultural ethos. Any deviation is a violation of the oath and compromises the integrity of the judiciary. The Justice Yadav case presents a critical test. It is not merely about the conduct of one judge but will have wider implications for the principle of separation of powers and commitment of public institutions to constitutional ideals. How this matter is now handled by the Rajya Sabha will set an important precedent for the future of India's democratic institutions.
Hindustan Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC dropped probe on Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after Rajya Sabha alert
The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, people aware of the matter said. The people cited above confirmed that then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether the judge's conduct warranted scrutiny in the wake of an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice. However, the move was halted after the Rajya Sabha secretariat's letter in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. This letter effectively stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry – an internal mechanism laid down through judicial precedents to examine complaints of misconduct against sitting judges of the superior judiciary, against Justice Yadav, whose comments at the VHP's December 8, 2024, event in Prayagraj drew widespread condemnation for violating the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality. HT reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. In February, Rajya Sabha chairman and vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter 'The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,' he said in Parliament on February 13. Justice Yadav, addressing a gathering organised by the legal cell of the VHP within the Allahabad High Court Bar Association premises, made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes. In his speech, he reportedly asserted that 'India should function according to the wishes of the majority,' claimed 'only a Hindu can make this country a 'Vishwa Guru',' and linked practices such as triple talaq and halala to societal backwardness, calling for their abolition under the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using derogatory communal remarks framed the UCC as a Hindu-Muslim binary, stating that while Hindu customs had evolved to address historical wrongs, Muslims had resisted reform. The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics.' The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and his immediate suspension, citing a clear breach of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court swiftly sought a report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes. While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns 'consistent with constitutional values.' Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026. People cited above said that CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But by then, an unexpected development complicated matters. In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav's conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration. 'The court's secretary general brought the letter to the notice of the then CJI, who was clear that an in-house inquiry, being a non-statutory and internal mechanism, should not run parallel to a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,' a person familiar with the matter told HT. 'The Rajya Sabha's categorical assertion that it was seized of the matter prompted the judiciary to defer to the parliamentary process,' this person added. The Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates that a motion seeking removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must be admitted by the presiding officer of the House concerned. To be sure, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide on the admissibility of the motion and whether to constitute a formal inquiry committee. 'The idea was not to create constitutional friction or undermine parliamentary privilege…That's the sole reason why no in-house probe was set up despite the initial steps,' the person cited above added. Another person aware of the deliberations within the collegium said that all members were informed of the decision to halt the in-house inquiry after the receipt of the Rajya Sabha's letter. 'There was a kind of consensus that the matter, being under legislative scrutiny, should not be clouded by a simultaneous judicial process,' the person said. Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to push for clarity on the status of the impeachment motion. Speaking to HT on condition of anonymity, a senior MP said last month that his party planned to raise the matter during the monsoon session. 'During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was assessing the veracity of the signatures on the notice. We would like to know the status of that notice notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up,' the lawmaker said. In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav reportedly maintained in January that he has done no wrong. He described his speech as an articulation of issues affecting society and claimed that his references were misconstrued. On the criticism of his previous judicial orders related to cow protection, he is said to have responded that these reflected India's cultural ethos and legal recognition of cow protection, not any form of judicial bias. Notably, Justice Yadav did not tender an apology in his correspondence, reinforcing his stance that his speech was neither communal nor violative of judicial conduct. He rather asserted that judges, who often face unfair attacks, deserve protection and support from senior members of the judiciary.
The Hindu
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Reimagining access to justice and rectifying systemic barriers
Public confidence in the Indian judiciary appears to be wavering due to a slew of reasons. The alleged discovery of burnt currency notes at the residence of High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited concerns over judicial corruption and prompted several judges to publicly declare their assets. There is also a perception that caste, religion, and political affiliations often dictate judicial conduct. Recently, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court delivered a speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. Meanwhile, the continuing spectacle of 'bulldozer justice', despite the Supreme Court rendering such extra-judicial demolitions illegal, further signals the increasing pressures on the judiciary. Rethinking judicial reforms Amid a credibility crisis, Tareekh Pe Justice: Reforms for India's District Courts (Simon & Schuster) by Prashant Reddy T. and Chitrakshi Jain offers a timely and critical intervention. The authors argue that meaningful judicial reforms must begin at the level of the district courts — the first and often the only point of contact for most Indian litigants. Far removed from the grandeur of constitutional benches, these courts often operate from dilapidated facilities. Yet they form the backbone of the judiciary, adjudicating the vast majority of civil and criminal cases across the country. Reddy and Jain challenge the popular narrative that a 'resource crunch' is the primary affliction of the district judiciary, manifesting in burgeoning case backlogs and a pervasive culture of adjournments. These visible systemic infirmities are merely the tip of the iceberg. Drawing on anecdotal evidence, the authors echo a concern once voiced by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud — that district judges operate under the looming threat of retribution, acutely aware that delivering a verdict perceived as unpalatable to the ruling dispensation could invite Kafkaesque disciplinary proceedings. These enquiries, initiated by the High Courts, have routinely admitted unreliable hearsay evidence, resulting in the arbitrary dismissal of judges. Culture of opacity Even more concerning is the secrecy surrounding these proceedings. The authors are unflinching in their critique: 'While the judiciary has been vocal about advocating for transparency in government, it has remained resistant to subjecting itself to external scrutiny.' This entrenched culture of opacity extends to judicial statistics. The book raises serious concerns about the reliability of data published on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), an online repository launched in 2015 under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project to track case statuses across all levels of the judiciary. The authors draw attention to the NJDG's own disclaimer, which concedes that it does not offer verified or authentic information. With scathing candour, they remark, 'These are strange disclaimers for the e-courts project, which has consumed ₹2,308 crore of public money since its inception in 2005.' Reddy and Jain also flag instances where the Supreme Court has arbitrarily invoked Article 121 of the Constitution to withhold statistical information from Parliament. While the provision restricts parliamentary debate on the conduct of individual judges except during impeachment proceedings, they contend that it cannot be used to insulate the judiciary's performance from legitimate scrutiny. Adopting a similar adversarial stance, the Supreme Court Registry has aggressively litigated against Right to Information (RTI) requests filed by citizens seeking data on judicial delays and other systemic limitations. In the final sections of the book, three radical reforms are proposed to fundamentally reimagine the justice system. The first involves restructuring the judiciary to mirror the U.S. model, with two parallel hierarchies of courts — one to adjudicate disputes under parliamentary law and another under State laws. Pointing to the growing trend of 'tribunalisation' as evidence that this shift is already in motion, they argue that such a framework would bolster accountability by establishing clearer chains of command. The second proposal advocates for the reintroduction of jury trials to foster civic engagement. While acknowledging the additional resource demands, the authors reason that the potential to restore institutional credibility and strengthen civic culture far outweighs the marginal increase in costs. Lastly, they underscore the importance of procedural law in ensuring fairness and predictability in adjudication. Demystifying the law Making justice truly accessible requires not only institutional reforms but also a concerted effort to cultivate greater awareness of legal rights. This is particularly crucial for women, who are increasingly vulnerable to violence, even within the confines of their homes. The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 2019-2021 revealed that 29.3% of married Indian women aged 18 to 49 have experienced domestic or sexual violence, yet a staggering 87% of victims of marital violence do not seek help. All too often, due to a lack of legal literacy, countless women endure abuse, exploitation, and mistreatment in silence. Legally Yours (HarperCollins) by Manasi Chaudhari serves as a beacon of hope, offering women a comprehensive resource to understand and assert their legal rights. Drawing on her decades of experience as a family lawyer, Chaudhari is cognisant that legal literacy extends far beyond merely knowing that laws exist. It requires a nuanced understanding of how legal provisions can be meaningfully applied to navigate the complex realities of women's personal and professional lives. Her book offers practical insights and actionable solutions to a range of issues that many women confront daily: What recourse is available if someone threatens to leak private photos? What are the property rights in a live-in relationship? How can one respond to workplace sexual harassment? What remedies are available if an employer unlawfully withholds maternity benefits? Yet, Chaudhari remains mindful of her audience, consciously avoiding the intimidating jargon typically associated with legal discourse. Instead, she infuses the book with engaging elements — Bollywood references, quizzes, and group activities. She also debunks several common myths: that domestic violence only involves physical abuse and protects only married women; that silence constitutes consent; and that maternity leave is unavailable to women who suffer a miscarriage, among others. In doing so, the book democratises legal knowledge and empowers a crucial stakeholder to confidently navigate a system that too often feels alienating.
