A PIL has been filed challenging the motion to impeach Justice Shekhar K. Yadav, asserting that his reference to “Kathmulla” does not amount to hate speech. The petition claims that the judge’s remarks have been misinterpreted and do not justify impeachment. This case brings into focus issues of judicial independence and the criteria for initiating impeachment proceedings. The matter is expected to ignite discussions on free speech and judicial accountability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Lucknow: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) 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 for the removal of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
Advocate Ashok Pandey, who submitted the petition, argues that the motion is invalid and constitutes an attack on the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
The impeachment motion, filed on December 13, 2024, alleges that Justice Yadav engaged in hate speech, displayed communal bias, and violated judicial ethics during a meeting organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on December 8, 2024.
The remarks he made during this meeting, which later went viral, were deemed inflammatory and inappropriate for a sitting judge.
The petitioner asserts that the comments were made in Justice Yadav’s personal capacity as a Hindu attending a religious gathering, rather than in his official role as a High Court judge. Emphasizing the constitutional provision of free speech under Article 19, the petition argues that judges, like all citizens, retain their fundamental rights outside the courtroom.
The writ petition claims that the motion does not satisfy the constitutional requirements for removal as outlined in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Indian Constitution, which specify “proven misbehavior or incapacity” as the only grounds for removing a High Court or Supreme Court judge.
The petitioner maintains that the allegations against Justice Yadav relate to personal opinions expressed in a private context and do not constitute professional misconduct.
The petition also references a similar motion previously filed against former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, which was rejected at the preliminary stage by the Rajya Sabha Chairman due to insufficient evidence. The petitioner has requested the court to dismiss the current motion against Justice Yadav in a similar manner.
Additionally, the petition highlights what it views as a misuse of parliamentary privilege by MPs targeting “honest and efficient judges” for personal or political motives, suggesting that some MPs may have signed the motion without fully understanding its implications.
The controversy surrounding Justice Yadav arises from comments he allegedly made criticizing certain Islamic practices and advocating for a Uniform Civil Code.
Read Also: [Justice Shekhar Yadav’s ‘Majority’ Remark] “I’m Not Apologetic”: VHP Chief Alok Kumar
The petition argues that these remarks do not constitute hate speech but rather reflect broader societal discussions. It contends that terms like “kathmulla,” reportedly used by Justice Yadav, describe specific orthodox practices and do not meet the legal definition of hate speech.
Finally, the petitioner argues that Justice Yadav’s comments align with the sentiments of the majority Hindu community and should not be misconstrued as communal bias.
The plea calls for the dismissal of the impeachment motion, warning against the establishment of a precedent where judges’ personal views outside their judicial roles are subjected to such scrutiny.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice Shekhar Yadav
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES