Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court sparked controversy after participating in an event organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) legal cell. During his address, he made several provocative comments related to religion, culture, and governance, which ignited widespread debate.
Uttar Pradesh: An Allahabad High Court judge’s comments at an event hosted by the Vishva Hindu Parishad have triggered significant controversy, with AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi raising concerns about the ability of minority parties to receive fair justice from the judge.
The VHP has been banned multiple times and is linked to the RSS, an organization that Vallabhai Patel once banned, calling it a “force of hate and violence.”
Criticising the judge, Hyderabad MP Owaisi said the Constitution of India expects independence and impartiality of its judiciary.
“The Constitution of India is based on democracy, not majoritarianism. In a democracy, the rights of minorities are protected. As Ambedkar aptly said, ‘Just as a King has no Divine Right to rule, a majority has no Divine Right to govern either.'”
“The VHP has been banned multiple times in the past and is associated with the RSS, an organization once prohibited by Vallabhbhai Patel for being a ‘force of hate and violence.’ It is deeply regrettable that a sitting High Court judge attended an event of such an organization. His speech raises questions about judicial impartiality and the collegium system. How can minorities expect justice from someone who participates in VHP programs?”
The Constitution of India is not majoritarian but democratic, ensuring the protection of minority rights.
As Dr. Ambedkar said, “…just as a King has no Divine Right to rule, a majority has no Divine Right to rule.”
This speech raises concerns about the collegium system and judicial impartiality.
How can a minority party expect justice from someone who engages with VHP’s events?
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court sparked controversy after participating in an event organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) legal cell. During his address, he made several provocative comments related to religion, culture, and governance, which ignited widespread debate.
Hindustan: A Nation of Majority Rule
Justice Yadav expressed his belief that the country should function according to the majority’s wishes, stating,
“I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan, and this country will be governed by the desires of the majority. This is the law. It’s not about speaking as a High Court judge, but the law operates in accordance with the majority. In a family or society, only what benefits and ensures the welfare of the majority will be accepted.”
This remark sparked discussions on constitutional principles, particularly concerning minority rights.
Remarks on Extremism and Use of “Kathmullah”
In his speech, Justice Yadav also made a controversial reference to extremists using the term “kathmullah,” a derogatory word popular on social media.
He remarked, “Though ‘kathmullah’ may not be the ideal term, I will use it because these individuals are harmful to the nation, against progress, and incite the public. We need to be cautious of them.”
His comments were criticized for promoting divisive rhetoric and raising questions about the appropriateness of such language from a sitting judge.
Cultural Values and Tolerance
Justice Yadav contrasted the upbringing of children in different communities, praising Hindu traditions of non-violence and compassion.
He explained,
“In our culture, we are taught to respect all living beings and avoid causing harm. This upbringing instills compassion, which is why we feel pain when others suffer. However, in other cultures, children are raised differently, which may make it harder for them to develop such tolerance and compassion.”
Uniform Civil Code: A Constitutional Necessity
Justice Yadav spoke about the need for a Uniform Civil Code, advocating for gender equality and criticizing practices such as Halala, Triple Talaq, and polygamy within the Muslim community.
He stated,
“A woman, revered as a goddess in our scriptures, should not be disrespected. Practices like Halala and Triple Talaq will not be tolerated. The Uniform Civil Code isn’t promoted by Hinduism, VHP, or RSS; it is supported by the highest court of the land.”
He expressed confidence in the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code, asserting, “I am certain that the country will soon implement a uniform law.”
Hindu Identity and Nationalism
Justice Yadav reiterated his view of Hindu identity, emphasizing its inclusivity and connection to national pride.
He stated, “This is my country, where the cow, Gita, and Ganga define our culture, and every home reveres Harbala Devi, with every child embodying Ram.”
He further clarified,
“Muslims need not follow Hindu rituals like marriage around the fire or bathing in the Ganga, but they should respect the culture, revered personalities, and deities of this land.”
