Defending the judge, Aggarwala asserted that judges, like all citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression. He emphasized that while judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have expressed a personal opinion, merely voicing views on an issue does not warrant impeachment.
New Delhi: December 13: Senior advocate and former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president, Adish C. Aggarwala, has spoken out against the impeachment motion submitted by Rajya Sabha MP and SCBA President Kapil Sibal against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. The motion follows allegations of hate speech by Justice Yadav.
Defending the judge, Aggarwala asserted that judges, like all citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression. He emphasized that while judges should recuse themselves from cases where they have expressed a personal opinion, merely voicing views on an issue does not warrant impeachment.
Aggarwala acknowledged that Justice Yadav’s public remarks could have been avoided but argued that they do not justify the drastic step of impeachment.
“I believe this impeachment motion is a calculated move to intimidate the judiciary, undermining the independence of the judicial system,”
Aggarwala stated.
He further noted that Kapil Sibal is aware of the slim chances of the motion succeeding, given that impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament—a feat unlikely in the current political scenario.
Kapil Sibal, while defending the motion, stated, “We have submitted a notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General to impeach Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. His inflammatory speech on December 9 at the High Court premises is unacceptable. This is not a political issue but a matter of upholding the Constitution and judicial independence.”
Sibal also called on Prime Minister Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and ruling party leaders to support the motion. He urged the Supreme Court to intervene by removing Justice Yadav and barring him from further judicial duties until a decision is reached.
Aggarwala strongly opposed Sibal’s stance, reiterating that the judiciary’s independence must be protected and cautioning against the misuse of impeachment for political purposes.
Justice Yadav’s Controversial Statements
Justice Yadav’s statements, which sparked controversy, included contentious remarks targeting the Muslim community. He asserted that India would operate according to the majority’s wishes, emphasizing that the welfare and happiness of the majority take precedence over others.
“This is Hindustan, and the country will function as per the majority’s wishes. This is the law. It is not about my role as a High Court Judge but how the law aligns with the majority,” he stated, likening societal governance to ensuring the welfare of the majority in a family.
The judge also used the term “kathmullah,” widely regarded as a slur against Muslims, cautioning against extremists. He remarked, “This word may not be appropriate, but I won’t hesitate to use it, as such individuals are harmful and detrimental to the nation, inciting the public and hindering progress.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
