The Allahabad High Court Today (Jan 7) dismissed a PIL challenging the impeachment motion against Justice SK Yadav, who faced criticism for controversial remarks against Muslims, including using the slur “kathmullah” and stating “India will function as per the wishes of the majority community.” The court deemed the PIL not maintainable, while the impeachment motion, initiated by MP Kapil Sibal and 54 others, followed public outrage. Advocate Asok Pande defended Yadav’s comments as personal views, arguing they were grievances against certain practices. The High Court also limited Justice Yadav’s judicial duties to specific cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that questioned the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over his controversial statements about Muslims.
A bench consisting of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi ruled that the PIL was not maintainable.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav sparked controversy when he made remarks at an event organized by the legal cell of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a right-wing organization.
During his speech, Justice Yadav stated that
“India will function as per the wishes of the majority community.”
He also used the term “kathmullah,” which is widely considered a derogatory slur against Muslims.
These remarks led to significant criticism and demands for action against him. Critics called for his judicial responsibilities to be curtailed, and the High Court subsequently reassigned his duties. Under the new roster, Justice Yadav will now only hear first appeals, specifically those arising from district court orders filed up to the year 2010.
In response to the controversy, Member of Parliament Kapil Sibal, along with 54 other MPs, initiated an impeachment motion against Justice Yadav.
This move was met with opposition in the form of a PIL filed by Advocate Asok Pande, who sought a directive to prevent the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha from acting on the impeachment motion.
Pande argued in the PIL that Justice Yadav’s remarks should not be considered hate speech, as he was expressing his opinions as a Hindu.
He stated:
“As an advocate and judge, he may have been aware of how Kathamullapan is preventing Muslim girls from attending school and college or how Muslim women are being compelled to wear the Hijab and Burqa by Kathamullas. He could be expressing grievance against the Kathamullapan of certain Muslims who, by standing with Babar, obstructed the construction of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple for a long time and continue to align with the actions of Aurangzeb at the Shri Kashi Vishwanath temple and the temple at Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi.”
The High Court ultimately dismissed the PIL, maintaining its stance that the petition was not legally tenable.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice SK Yadav
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
