Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has reportedly asked Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali for a new report regarding Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks about Muslims. The move comes amid growing concerns over the judge’s statements. Justice Yadav continues to stand by his comments, further intensifying the matter. The fresh report is expected to address the issue in detail.
New Delhi: Three weeks after the Allahabad High Court’s Justice Shekhar Yadav summoned by the Supreme Court Collegium for his remarks aimed at Muslims during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, further actions have been taken by the Chief Justice of India.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna has reportedly reached out to Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, requesting a new report on the situation.
On December 17, the Collegium led by CJI Khanna met with Justice Yadav to seek an explanation.
However, since that meeting, Justice Yadav has remained stubborn, providing neither an apology nor an explanation. Following their discussion, CJI Khanna informed the full Supreme Court about the matter. This latest action by the CJI is viewed as an initial step toward launching an in-house inquiry regarding the alleged misconduct of a judge.
According to a 1995 Supreme Court ruling in the case of C Ravichandran Iyer versus Justice A M Bhattacharjee and Others, when a complaint involves a High Court judge, the Chief Justice of that High Court must conduct an inquiry and consult with the Chief Justice of India.
That particular case dealt with allegations of financial misconduct against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee. The court addressed the distinction between inappropriate behavior and impeachable misconduct.
Although Justice Bhattacharjee resigned following the allegations, the Supreme Court established a legal framework for such issues, stating that it would serve as a precedent for the future.
The ruling noted,
“We believe that when a complaint pertains to a High Court judge, the Chief Justice of that High Court, after verification and possibly a confidential inquiry from independent sources, should ascertain the accuracy of the allegations made by the Bar Association against the judge and consult the Chief Justice of India as necessary.”
It further specified that when the Chief Justice of India is involved, to prevent embarrassment and ensure fairness, the Bar should refrain from taking further actions to allow the CJI to appropriately address the matter.
The ruling stated,
“Upon receiving information from the Chief Justice of the High Court, if the CJI is satisfied about the judge’s conduct, he may offer advice or initiate necessary actions based on the circumstances. If possible, it may be beneficial to inform the judge before taking action. Once the CJI makes a decision, the matter should be considered concluded,”
Following this ruling, in 1997, the Supreme Court’s full court decided to create an in-house inquiry mechanism for judges found to violate the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life,’ a code of ethics established by the court.
Read Also: [Justice Shekhar Yadav’s ‘Majority’ Remark] “I’m Not Apologetic”: VHP Chief Alok Kumar
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court recently come under scrutiny for his controversial comments made during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. He remarked that “India will function according to the wishes of the majority” and referred to certain individuals as “kathmullahs” who are against the nation.
This follows earlier statements in which he asserted that “scientists believe the cow is the only animal that exhales oxygen” and called for the cow to be designated as the national animal. These comments have ignited discussions regarding the appropriateness of judges voicing personal opinions and the potential implications for judicial impartiality.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
