| Major Details | Description |
| Event | Allahabad High Court justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav made controversial remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. |
| Supreme Court’s Action | SC has sought a fresh report from Allahabad HC Chief Justice regarding remarks. |
| Date of Controversial Remark | December 8, 2024 |
| Key Remarks by Justice Yadav | Used term “kathmulla” and claimed that Muslim children are exposed to violence early, unlike Hindu children who are taught tolerance and kindness. |
| SC Collegium’s Action | Summoned Justice Yadav, seeking explanations for his remarks, with further inquiry initiated. |
| Judicial Precedent Referenced | 1995 SC case of C Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice A M Bhattacharjee and Others, which outlined protocol for investigating complaints against High Court judges. |
| Public Reaction | Backlash from legal bodies such as Bar Association of India and public criticism over controversial statements. |
| Chief Justice of India’s Role | CJI Sanjiv Khanna heads SC Collegium initiating inquiry process. |
Context of Controversy
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court recently came under scrutiny after making remarks targeting Muslim community at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. speech, delivered on December 8th, 2024, sparked widespread criticism. Justice Yadav reportedly used a derogatory term, “kathmulla,” to describe Muslims and suggested that Muslim children lack qualities like tolerance and kindness due to exposure to animal slaughter from an early age.
He further claimed that Hindu children are inherently taught principles of non-violence and kindness, setting them apart from their Muslim counterparts. His assertion that “India would function only as majority wishes,” implicitly referring to Hindus, drew sharp criticism from legal bodies and public intellectuals.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
In response to Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks, Supreme Court initiated an inquiry into matter. SC collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, took cognizance of issue and requested a detailed report from Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Arun Bhansali. This action follows a prior meeting between SC collegium and Justice Yadav on December 17th, 2024, where judge was asked to explain his statements.
Despite inquiries, Justice Yadav has reportedly remained firm in his stance. There has been no indication of an apology or an official explanation, leaving SC with no choice but to push for a deeper investigation.
Legal Precedents in Judicial Accountability
current scenario draws parallels to a landmark Supreme Court case in 1995: C Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice A M Bhattacharjee and Others. This case dealt with allegations of financial impropriety against Justice Bhattacharjee, then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Following allegations, Justice Bhattacharjee resigned, and SC laid down guidelines for addressing complaints against High Court judges.
1995 judgment mandated that Chief Justice of concerned High Court consult Chief Justice of India after conducting an inquiry. judgment emphasized importance of judicial integrity and transparency, forming a precedent for future cases, including current inquiry involving Justice Yadav.
Broader Implications of Justice Yadav’s Remarks
Justice Yadav’s remarks, particularly at an event organized by a group like VHP, raise concerns about perceived impartiality of judiciary. judiciary is expected to uphold Constitution and ensure justice without bias. Comments that appear to favor one community over another undermine public trust in judicial system.
His statement that “India would function only as majority wishes” contradicts constitutional values of secularism and inclusivity. Critics argue that such remarks create division and can erode communal harmony in a diverse country like India.
Backlash and Public Reaction
Bar Association of India and several prominent legal experts condemned Justice Yadav’s remarks. Legal scholars highlighted dangers of judges making public statements that align with ideological or communal biases. Activists and civil society organizations also criticized comments, urging judiciary to take strict action to maintain its credibility.
Supreme Court’s Next Steps
SC’s demand for a fresh report suggests its determination to thoroughly examine matter. report will likely include inputs from Allahabad HC Chief Justice and an assessment of Justice Yadav’s conduct. outcome could range from an official reprimand to more severe consequences, depending on findings.
This case also underscores importance of judicial accountability. As judiciary holds power to influence societal norms and governance, ensuring that judges adhere to ethical standards is paramount.
Disclaimer
information presented in this article is based on publicly available sources and current developments related to judicial inquiry involving Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Views expressed in article reflect public discourse and are not author’s personal opinions. Readers are encouraged to refer to official court proceedings and statements for most accurate and updated information.
