PRAYAGRAJ: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad high court, who was summoned by the Supreme Court collegium last month over his remarks on Muslims at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event has told the Chief Justice of the HC that he stands by his remarks on the occasion and that he did not violate any principle of judicial conduct.
Striking an unapologetic note in a letter to Chief Justice of the HC, Arun Bhansali, Justice Yadav has said that his remarks were being distorted by people with vested interest. He said that since judges who cannot defend themselves in public, need to be protected by seniors, sources said.
On December 17, Justice Yadav appeared before the apex court collegium, headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, to explain his position on the issue following an uproar in Parliament over his remarks. Later, the CJI sent a letter to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court seeking a fresh response from Justice Yadav, referring to two complaints lodged against him in the matter.
His assertive stand may toss the matter into Parliament’s court. An HC judge is not subordinate to a SC justice and the SC Collegium has no power, beyond taking him off a bench and withdrawing work from him, to force an HC judge to do anything on the non-judicial side, pointed out former law secretary P K Malhotra.
In his letter to CJ Bhansali, Justice Yadav is learnt to have maintained that his speech was an expression of his thoughts on societal issues consistent with values enshrined in the Constitution, and not to create hatred towards any community.
The controversy stems from a speech delivered by Justice Yadav on December 8 while addressing an event of the VHP’s legal cell in the library hall of Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA). In this speech, Justice Yadav had termed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a Hindu versus Muslim debate, where the former had brought in reforms while the latter had not.
“You have a misconception that if a law (UCC) is brought in, it will be against your Shariyat, your Islam and your Quran,” Justice Yadav had said. “But I want to say one more thing. Whether it is your personal law, our Hindu law, your Quran or whether it is our Gita, as I said, we have addressed the ills (buraaiyan) in our practices… kamiyan thi, durust kar liye hain (the shortcomings have been addressed). Untouchability, sati, Jauhar, female foeticide… we have addressed all those issues. Then why are you not doing away with this law that while your first wife is there, you can have three wives without her consent. That is not acceptable,” Justice Yadav had reportedly said in the programme of VHP held on December 8.
The complaint against him also referred to one of his orders relating to cow protection and the questions raised by some activists.
It is learnt that in response to this, Justice Yadav has said that cow protection reflects a society’s culture and its significance is duly recognised under the law. Supporting legitimate and rightful sentiment in favour of cow protection cannot be read as violating the principles of justice, fairness, integrity and impartiality, he is said to have pointed out.
The judges of the Supreme Court or high courts enjoy constitutional protection after he/she is appointed by the President. Article 124(4) of the constitution provides that “a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
For the process of the removal of a judge of HC or SC to kick in, a motion that accuses him of “proven misconduct” and “misconduct” signed by no less than, depending where it is moved, 100 members of Lok Sabha and 50 members of Rajya Sabha, is required to be adopted.
Once endorsed by the requisite number of MPs, the charges under the two counts are required to be probed by a panel comprising a three-person panel of an SC judge, CJ of a HC and a jurist. The motion is then put to vote in Parliament if the charges are upheld.
Justice Yadav’s case is interesting also because, unlike the four cases where removal of judges has so far been sought, he is not accused of corruption.
