Today, On 10th December, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) Chief has stated, “I’m not apologetic,” in response to criticism over Justice Shekhar Yadav’s remarks at a VHP event. Justice Yadav had commented that the law should function according to the majority, sparking controversy. The VHP Chief defended the statement, asserting it reflects democratic principles. The incident reignited debates on judicial impartiality and the role of majoritarianism in lawmaking.
Lucknow: Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) chief Alok Kumar on Tuesday dismissed opposition criticism directed at Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Yadav for attending and speaking at a VHP event in Prayagraj.
He affirmed that such “awareness meets would continue to be organized.”
Justice Yadav addressed topics such as the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) during a provincial convention of the VHP’s Legal Cell and High Court Unit on Sunday. Videos of his remarks, in which he reportedly stated that laws should reflect the majority’s views, circulated widely and elicited strong reactions from opposition parties.
Kumar, who is the VHP’s international president, explained that while he did not attend the Prayagraj meeting, he was aware of the discussions.
Kumar told,
“We had invited the judge as a faculty member to speak on the UCC. We engage with former judges and invite them to support the VHP’s Hindutva agenda. However, we do not expect or invite sitting judges to work with us. On occasions related to topics like the UCC, we invite them to enlighten us,”
He further stated,
“Regarding the UCC, the High Court judge emphasized that it is a constitutional mandate under the Directive Principles of State Policy, and elected representatives should adhere to these directives. He referenced various Supreme Court rulings that advocate for the evolution of a UCC, asserting that it would foster societal integration and national unity.”
While Kumar claimed he was unaware of the specific comments regarding the “majority,”
He added,
“I would not be apologetic”
If the judge expressed that the laws should be influenced by majority perspectives. He emphasized that,
“The sentiments and emotions of the majority society deserve as much respect as those of the minority.”
Kumar illustrated his point, saying,
“For instance, our respect for cows may not be shared by everyone. We cannot impose our beliefs on others, but those with different sensitivities should respect our views, such as on cow slaughter.”
He noted that while Islam is technically a minority in India, due to its significant population, it represents a “second majority.”
He remarked,
“Without mutual respect or, at the very least, mutual tolerance for each other’s sensitivities, integration will be challenging.”
When asked about the invitation extended to a sitting judge, Kumar responded,
“We instruct our legal cell to organize awareness sessions inviting numerous advocates to discuss issues like the liberation of Hindu temples, amendments to the Waqf Act, and the UCC. There will be meetings everywhere.”
Kumar’s mention of “former judges” suggests that, at least for now, sitting judges may be less likely to feature in VHP events due to the controversy surrounding the Prayagraj gathering.
Meanwhile, lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan has written to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, requesting an “in-house inquiry” into Justice Yadav’s conduct. In his letter, Bhushan claimed that Justice Yadav endorsed the UCC and made remarks perceived as targeting the Muslim community.
In a previous case in September 2021, Justice Yadav had made notable comments regarding cows, stating,
“Cows should be declared the national animal, and cow protection should be a fundamental right for Hindus because the culture and faith of the country are integral to its strength.”
He emphasized the cow’s significance in Indian culture, referencing its importance in the Vedas, Puranas, and the Ramayana. Kumar also mentioned he was unaware of other statements attributed to the judge, including those suggesting that Hindu children were more tolerant than those from other faiths.
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
