![[Justice Shekhar Yadav’s ‘Majority’ Remark] "Motion is Invalid & Attacks Freedom of Speech": PIL Challenges Impeachment](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-20-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
A PIL has been filed against the impeachment motion of Justice Shekhar K. Yadav, arguing that his comments at a VHP meeting were misinterpreted and do not constitute hate speech. The petition emphasizes judicial independence and free speech rights, asserting that the allegations do not meet constitutional standards for judicial removal.
Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court is under scrutiny for controversial remarks made at a VHP event, suggesting that “law works according to the majority.” His statements have drawn criticism and raised concerns about judicial neutrality. The Supreme Court collegium is set to review the situation as calls for his impeachment grow.
Adish C. Aggarwala, a senior advocate, defended Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav against an impeachment motion by Kapil Sibal, addressing allegations of hate speech. Aggarwala argued that judges, like other citizens, deserve freedom of expression and emphasized that voicing opinions does not justify impeachment. He criticized the motion as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s roster at Allahabad High Court is updated, effective December 16, limiting him to first appeals from district court orders filed up to 2010. This change follows controversy over his remarks regarding the Muslim community, prompting calls for his impeachment and reassigning sensitive cases to other justices.
Today (10th Dec): The Supreme Court has taken note of remarks made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court during a December 8 event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s legal cell.
The apex court, on its administrative side, has sought details and particulars from the High Court regarding the matter, which is currently under consideration.
![[VHP Event] NGO Writes To CJI Khanna Seeks ‘In-house’ Inquiry Against Allahabad HC Judge For His Remarks](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-11-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO CJAR, criticized Justice Yadav for his comments at a VHP event, claiming they undermine judicial impartiality and erode public trust. The letter requests an in-house inquiry and highlights concerns about the judge’s remarks targeting Muslims, advocating for the Uniform Civil Code, and violating judicial ethics.
![[VHP Event] How Can Someone Dare To Make Such Statements? This Trend Persisted Over The Past Decade: SCBA President Kapil Sibal Condemns Justice Shekhar Yadav’s Speech](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-10-3.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Kapil Sibal condemned Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s divisive remarks at a VHP event, arguing that such statements are unfit for a judge. He is rallying political leaders to support an impeachment motion to uphold judicial independence, warning that failure to act would imply support for Yadav’s controversial views on majority rule in India.
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.
The All India Lawyers Union (AILU) condemned Justice Shekhar Yadav’s speech at a Vishva Hindu Parishad event, asserting it threatens judicial independence and promotes hate speech against Muslims. They criticized his remarks for violating constitutional values, emphasizing that democracy should not equate to majoritarianism and called for remedial action against him.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court caused a stir by attending a Vishva Hindu Parishad event and making divisive remarks about governance, minority rights, and cultural values. His comments raised concerns about judicial impartiality, particularly regarding the rights of minorities in a democracy, leading to widespread criticism from political leaders.