Fifty-five MPs from the Rajya Sabha have submitted an impeachment motion against Allahabad high court judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, for stating at a function organized by the VHP on the premises of the Allahabad high court that the country will be run as per the wishes of the majority and for derisively referring to members of a minority community as “kathmulla,” which is a communal slur.
He reportedly said, “I have no hesitation in saying this is Hindustan. This country would function as per the wishes of the bahusankhyak (majority) living in Hindustan. This is the law. The law, in fact, works according to the (wishes of the) majority. Look at it in the context of family or society. Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted,” he said.
The impeachment motion said the judge’s words were “inflammatory, prejudiced and had directly targeted minority communities” in violation of the Constitution of India. AIMIM chief Asadduddin Owaisi asked how a minority person could expect justice from such a judge while Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan wrote to CJI Sanjiv Khanna demanding an inhouse inquiry.
A minimum of 50 MPs’ signatures in the Rajya Sabha are needed to move the impeachment motion. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, a Rajya Sabha MP who led the delegation that submitted the impeachment motion to the secretary general of the Rajya Sabha, got five more than needed. To date, sitting judges opted to resign rather than be disgraced by being impeached. Justice Yadav has roughly 15 months to retire but his inflammatory utterances have raised questions as to how he was selected.
The 46th CJI Ranjan Gogoi approved his elevation while the warrant of appointment was issued by the then President Ram Nath Kovind. Sitting judges are immune from the law for their remarks made during judicial proceedings. But Justice Yadav uttered these inflammatory words in the high court library at a public event. So he could be prosecuted for inciting communal hatred. While endorsing the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code, Justice Yadav declared (all) laws should align with the wishes of the majority, directly flouting his oath taken as a judge to uphold secularism enshrined in the preamble. Retired judges train incumbent judges at state judicial training academies to be reticent and not voice their private opinions in public.
The impeachment motion, which comes amidst a no-confidence motion moved against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar, the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, states the judge violated his oath of office and the secular ethos of the Constitution. The MPs voiced their ire over the alleged statement of this sitting judge that children from this minority community could never exhibit kindness because they were exposed to slaughtering goats and other animals at a young age. The motion alleged that by making such hate-filled and offensive statements and also alluding to the Ram Janambhoomi movement, this sitting judge displayed his political leanings and eroded the confidence of the people in the judiciary.
“Such statements jeopardize the role of the judiciary as a neutral arbitrator and protector of rights, it leads to a complete lack of faith in a litigant approaching the courts with folded hands,” one of the paragraphs in the impeachment motion declared.
The remarks of the sitting judge triggered uproar throughout the country with the Supreme Court asking the registrar general of the Allahabad High Court to submit a report on the inflammatory speech. MPs demanded that the judge should not be allotted any judicial work. Ironically, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Arun Bhansali, who is being considered for elevation to the Supreme Court, only switched the assignment of this controversial judge from criminal matters to civil suits.
The same judge had denied bail to a man in 2021 for stating that “scientists believe cows are the only animals that inhale and exhale oxygen.” He wrote in his order that “cow products such as panchgayya can cure incurable diseases” and asserted that the nation’s prosperity depended on the welfare of cows; he further demanded that the cow be declared as India’s national animal. There was hardly any reasoning given about why the accused was denied bail.
