THE JUDICIARY & PUBLIC TRUST IN LIGHT OF THE CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT MADE BY JUSTICE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

REYANSH THAKUR

1/6/20254 min read

Introduction

The judiciary in any democracy is its cornerstone—a guardian of constitutional values, impartiality, and justice. Recent developments involving Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, however, raise serious concerns about these principles. Justice Yadav’s controversial speech at an event organized by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), a right-wing organization, has sparked a national debate on judicial conduct, secularism, and public trust in the judiciary.

The Controversial Speech

Justice Yadav, during his address, made several remarks that raised serious questions about the functioning of the judiciary especially judges who carry their personal ideology in the Courtroom. Peers viewed his speech as communal and discriminatory. He asserted that India should function as per the wishes of the “majority,” referencing the Hindu community. Furthermore, his use of derogatory terms to describe a section of the Muslim population and his criticism of practices like multiple marriages and triple talaq have been deemed inflammatory. By juxtaposing the cultural values of one community against another, Justice Yadav’s comments have been criticized for violating the constitutional principles of secularism and equality.

In his speech, he remarked that while one community raises children with values of tolerance and non-violence, another allegedly lacks such teachings, citing the practice of animal slaughter. He also glorified Hindu cultural symbols like the Ganga and the Gita while casting aspersions on the practices of the Muslim community. These statements, according to critics, not only stereotype communities but also undermine the pluralistic fabric of Indian society.

Judicial Neutrality & The Constitution

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has taken strong exception to Justice Yadav’s remarks, urging the Chief Justice of India to initiate an in-house inquiry. The CJAR’s letter highlights the violation of Articles 14 (equality before the law), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25–26 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution. These principles form the bedrock of India’s secular and democratic framework. The CJAR also pointed to the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life,” adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, which emphasizes impartiality, integrity, and commitment to constitutional values. Justice Yadav’s conduct, as per the CJAR, is a blatant violation of these standards, raising doubts about his ability to adjudicate cases with fairness and neutrality.

The Role Of Judges In A Democracy

Judges hold a unique position in a democracy. Their words and actions carry immense weight, as they are seen as custodians of justice and interpreters of the Constitution of India. Any deviation from this role whether in speech or conduct can erode public trust in the judiciary. Justice Yadav’s participation in a VHP event and his subsequent remarks have led to widespread criticism, not just from legal experts but also from civil society. His statements are seen as a breach of the judicial oath, which requires judges to uphold the Constitution without fear, favor, or prejudice.

Implications For Judicial Independence

The controversy surrounding Justice Yadav has broader implications for judicial independence. When judges make public statements that align with a particular ideology or community, it raises questions about their ability to decide cases impartially. This is especially concerning in a diverse country like India, where the judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting minority rights and upholding the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s decision to take cognizance of the matter is a welcome step. It signifies the judiciary’s commitment to accountability and underscores the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. However, this incident also highlights the need for stricter guidelines on judicial conduct outside the courtroom.

The Larger Debate: Secularism And Pluralism

Justice Yadav’s remarks have reignited the debate on secularism in India. The Constitution envisions India as a secular nation, where all religions are treated equally, and no community is discriminated against. Statements like those made by Justice Yadav challenge this vision and risk deepening communal divisions.

Moreover, the controversy sheds light on the need for introspection within the judiciary. While judges are entitled to personal beliefs, they must ensure that their public conduct does not compromise the judiciary’s perceived neutrality.

The Way Forward

As the Supreme Court examines the allegations against Justice Yadav, several steps can be considered to address such issues in the future:

  • · In-House Mechanisms: Strengthening in-house mechanisms to deal with complaints against judges can ensure accountability while maintaining the judiciary’s independence.

  • · Training and Awareness: Regular workshops and sensitization programs can help judges understand the importance of neutrality and the impact of their public statements.

  • · Transparency: Making the outcomes of inquiries into judicial conduct public can enhance transparency and reinforce public trust in the judiciary.

Conclusion

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial remarks have sparked a necessary conversation about judicial conduct, secularism, and public trust in democratic institutions. While the Supreme Court’s intervention is a positive step, this incident underscores the need for continued vigilance and reform to uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution. In a democracy, the judiciary serves as a beacon of hope and justice. To preserve this role, it is imperative that judges adhere to the highest standards of conduct, ensuring that their actions and words inspire confidence rather than controversy.

References:

· The Wire Staff, Supreme Court Takes Note of HC Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s Communal Speech at VHP Event (Dec. 10, 2024), https://m.thewire.in/article/law/supreme-court-allahabad-high-court-shekhar-kumar-yadav-speech/amp.

· INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 21, 25–26.

· Supreme Court of India, Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997).