Thirteen senior advocates have urged Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to take suo motu notice of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial speech, accusing him of hate speech and majoritarian views. They request an investigation into possible constitutional violations and emphasize the importance of judicial integrity and impartiality, calling for a CBI inquiry into the matter.
New Delhi: In a classic turn of events, 13 senior advocates of the Supreme Court have written a strongly-worded letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, urging him to take suo motu notice of a controversial speech made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. The advocates have requested that the matter be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for lodging an FIR under the guidelines laid down in the landmark judgment of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).
The Core of the Allegations
The letter highlights that Justice Yadav addressed a gathering organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)‘s legal cell on December 8, 2024, within the premises of the Allahabad High Court library. According to the advocates, the speech contained “unconstitutional remarks” that violated the oath of office taken by a judge.
The advocates emphasized the importance of judicial impartiality, stating:
“The issue raised in this letter is at the heart of judicial impartiality and the constitutional values that all judges are sworn to uphold.”
Allegations of Hate Speech
The letter accuses Justice Yadav of making divisive and inflammatory statements during his address. Among the reported remarks, Justice Yadav allegedly referred to “hamari Gita” (our Gita) and “aapki Koran” (your Koran), creating a stark “us versus them” divide. The judge is also accused of using derogatory language, including the term “kathmulla” to describe a section of Muslims.
Also Read: Supreme Court Grants Notional Promotion to Three Officers in Jharkhand Judicial Service
According to the letter, Justice Yadav demanded that Muslims discard practices like polygamy and triple talaq, while suggesting that Hindus had reformed their traditions, including sati and Untouchability.
The advocates pointed out that the judge’s rhetoric went beyond commentary on the Uniform Civil Code and devolved into outright hate speech, devoid of academic or legal merit.
“There was nothing academic, legal, or juristic about the contents of the speech. Ostensibly, he was commenting on the Uniform Civil Code, but the entire speech seemed like a cover for spreading hate speech on a public platform,”
the letter stated.
Majoritarian Views and Constitutional Breach
The advocates expressed concern over Justice Yadav’s endorsement of majoritarian governance. The judge reportedly stated that India is run by the “bahusankhyak” (majority), whose writ must prevail. The letter called this statement an affront to the constitutional promise of equality and justice for all, irrespective of religion.
The speech also invoked the “liberation of Ram Lalla” and the construction of the Ayodhya temple while drawing unfounded parallels between India and “Bangladesh” or the “Taliban.”
Broader Implications
The advocates emphasized that the remarks were not only divisive but also factually baseless and dangerously inflammatory. Justice Yadav allegedly characterized Muslims as lacking tolerance and generosity, claiming:
“Hindus are taught from childhood about God, the Vedas, and non-violence. But in your community, animals are slaughtered in front of children. How can you expect them to become tolerant or kind?”
Such remarks, the letter argued, violated Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution and undermined the Preamble’s promise of secularism and equality.
Prior Opposition to Justice Yadav’s Appointment
The letter also revealed that Justice Yadav’s appointment to the Allahabad High Court was strongly opposed by former CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, who had cited the judge’s inadequate work experience and links to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Dr. Chandrachud’s note highlighted Justice Yadav’s closeness to a former BJP Rajya Sabha member, now a minister in the Union Cabinet, and concluded that he was “not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court.”
Judicial Precedent and Accountability
Citing the K. Veeraswami judgment, the advocates stressed that any criminal case against a judge must involve the Chief Justice of India’s consultation to ensure judicial integrity. They also referred to the Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) case, which defines hate speech and its potential to disrupt unity and harmony.
The letter asserted:
“Justice Yadav’s participation in the event and his inflammatory statements represent a severe violation of judicial impartiality and constitutional principles.”
Call for Suo Motu Action
In light of the seriousness of the matter, the advocates have urged CJI Khanna to take suo motu cognizance and direct the CBI to lodge an FIR against Justice Yadav. The letter argued that an impartial investigation, independent of the State, is crucial to maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
The signatories to the letter include prominent senior advocates Indira Jaising, Aspi Chinoy, Navroz Seervai, Anand Grover, and Gayatri Singh, among others. Copies of the letter have been sent to members of the Supreme Court Collegium, including Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy, and Abhay S. Oka.
Upholding Judicial Integrity
The letter concluded by reiterating the importance of judicial propriety, citing the Restatement of Judicial Values (1997), which mandates judges to uphold public confidence in their impartiality.
“The delivery of communally charged statements by a sitting judge not only undermines religious harmony but also erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity,”
the advocates stated.
This case highlights a critical test for the judiciary in addressing allegations of misconduct while upholding the principles of impartiality, accountability, and constitutional values.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE