'Direct CBI To Lodge FIR Against Justice Shekhar Yadav': 13 Senior Advocates Write To CJI Sanjiv Khanna

In the evening today, 13 senior advocates of the Supreme Court have written to the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. It has been stated in the letter that the December 8, 2024 speech of Justice Yadav amounts to "hate speech" as per the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in light of the fact that a cognisance offence has been committed by the judge, he should be prosecuted in accordance with law. The letter requests the CJI to take suo motu notice of the speech (mentioned below) in his capacity as the CJI, in light of the seriousness of the matter impacting the independence of the judiciary, and the fact that an investigation required to be impartial and independent of the State, directs the CBI to lodge an FIR against Justice Yadav per the law laid down in K. Veeraswami v. UOI (1991):“The Chief Justice of India is a participatory functionary in the matter of appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. (Articles 124(2) and 2 17(1).) Even for transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another the Chief Justice should be consulted by the President of India (Article 222). If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court,the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (Article 217(3)). Secondly, the Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary is primarily concerned with the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Hence it is necessary that the Chief Justice of India is not kept out of the picture of any criminal case contemplated against a Judge. He would be in a better position to give his opinion in the case and consultation with the Chief Justice of India would be of immense assistance to the Government in coming to the right conclusion. We therefore direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154, Cr. P. C. against Judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of the High Court or Judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. Due regard must be given by the Government to the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice is of opinion that it is not a fit case for proceeding under the Act, the case shall not be registered. If the Chief Justice of India himself is the person against whom the allegations of criminal misconduct are received the Government shall consult any other Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. There shall be similar consultation at the stage of examining the question of granting sanction for prosecution and it shall be necessary and appropriate that the question of sanction be guided by and in accordance with the advice of the Chief Justice of India. Accordingly the directions shall go to the Government. These directions, in our opinion, would allay the apprehension of all concerned that the Act is likely to be misused by the Executive for collateral purpose.” (See: para 60)"At the outset, the letter states that the issue raised in it is at the heart of "judicial impartiality" and the "constitutional values" that all judges are sworn to uphold.The speech in questionThe letter states: "It has been brought to public notice and is widely reported that a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, namely Justice Shekhar Yadav, addressed a gathering on December 8, 2024. The said gathering was organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad's (VHP) legal cell within the library premises of the Allahabad High Court. The contents of his speech, recorded and widely disseminated, have been characterized as hate speech, containing remarks that appear unconstitutional and contrary to the oath of office taken by a judge.Throughout his address, Justice Yadav drew a stark and inflammatory distinction between “ham” (us) and “aap” (them), speaking of “hamari Gita” (our Gita) and “aapki Koran” (your Koran). This blatantly divisive rhetoric disregards judicial impartiality, with the judge openly aligning himself with one religious community while painting the other in a deeply derogatory light. His use of the derogatory “kathmulla” to refer to a section of Muslims is deeply disturbing."It has been noted in the letter that in his references to religious reform, Justice Yadav employed a tone of coercion and dominance. "While acknowledging that Hindus have reformed traditional practices such as sati and Untouchability, he demanded that Muslims discard practices such as polygamy and triple talaq," the letter states. The senior advocates have stated that ostensibly, Justice Yadav was commenting on the Uniform Civil Code, but the entire speech seemed like a cover for spreading hate speech on a public platform. There was nothing academic, legal, or juristic about the contents of the speech: "Further, Justice Yadav asserted a majoritarian view of governance in saying that India is run by the “bahusankhyak” (majority), whose writ must prevail. This is an affront to the...

'Direct CBI To Lodge FIR Against Justice Shekhar Yadav': 13 Senior Advocates Write To CJI Sanjiv Khanna

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags