Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court sparked controversy with remarks suggesting India should align with majority views, referencing the Uniform Civil Code. His speech included derogatory comments about extremists and raised concerns regarding his impartiality. Criticism arose from legal experts about his commitment to constitutional values and judicial independence.
Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, born on August 14, 1963, in Hyderabad, assumed office on February 6, 2023, and will retire on August 13, 2028. He completed his education in Commerce and Law, began his career in his father’s law office, and has held significant positions, including Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court.
Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud clarified that his previous comments on prayer in relation to the Ayodhya dispute were misconstrued. He emphasized that his faith does not influence legal judgments and highlighted the importance of impartiality in judicial roles. Chandrachud advocates for respect among various faiths while ensuring justice for all.
The Supreme Court today (25th Sept) cautioned judges and lawyers against personal biases impacting their duties after controversial remarks by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda. The court emphasized national integrity, urging mindfulness due to social media’s expansive reach. While closing proceedings after an apology, it reiterated the need for impartiality in justice.
Justice G. Jayachandran criticized Justice G.R. Swaminathan for bias against State police and hasty decision-making in YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s detention case. Swaminathan’s failure to consult his bench partner and refusal to allow the State to file a counter affidavit led Jayachandran to declare Swaminathan’s opinion invalid. Swaminathan’s explanations were deemed inadequate.
The Delhi High Court on 28th May reversed the transfer of the Bhushan Steel money laundering case, stressing that the judge’s comment did not indicate bias. The court emphasized the confidentiality of conversations between judges and staff, and the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. The case was to be reconsidered with the High Court’s observations in mind.