Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Dec 10: The Supreme Court on Tuesday took suo motu cognisance of the newspaper report about remarks made by Allahabad High Court sitting judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav where he said the “country would function as per the wishes of the majority group.”
The SC issued a statement stating that it had taken notice of Justice Yadav’s communally-charged remarks made while delivering a lecture on the ‘Constitutional Necessity of Uniform Civil Code’ in an event organised by the legal cell of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Prayagraj on Sunday.
The top court said the “details and particulars” have been called from the Allahabad High Court. “The matter is under consideration,” the court said.
Justice Yadav was reported to have said the country would be run according to the wishes of the majority. The judge commented that the Uniform Civil Code was coming while referring to how women were revered in one community while subjected polygamy and triple talaq by another.
“I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan, this country would function as per the wishes of the bahusankhyak (majority) living in Hindustan (India). This is the Law. You can’t say that you are saying this being a High Court Judge. The law, in fact, works according to the majority. Look at it in the context of family or society…Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted” Justice Yadav had said.
Justice Yadav was addressing the event on UCC which seeks to establish a framework of standardised personal laws that would apply to all citizens, irrespective of their caste, creed and religion. It would apply to marriage, inheritance, adoption, and succession. He further questioned the practice of having multiple wives, Halala, and Triple Talaq, without naming any particular community and said it’s “unacceptable.”
Asserting that the Uniform Civil Code would soon be implemented in the country, Justice Yadav said the country which has one constitution and one set of penal laws must have a unified civil law. “You can’t disrespect a woman who has been recognised as a goddess in our Shastras and Vedas. You can’t claim the right to have four wives, perform halala, or practice triple talaq. You say, ‘we have the right to triple talaq and not give maintenance to women’. But this right will not work. The UCC isn’t something that the VHP, RSS, or Hinduism advocate. The country’s top court also talks about it,” he added.
The remark by Justice Yadav has sparked a political uproar in the country as the opposition parties earlier on Tuesday urged Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to take cognisance of the issue. INDIA bloc MPs, including Trinamool Congress’s Mahua Moitra and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen’s Asaduddin Owaisi, criticised the judge over his remark, calling it “partial and fully biased.” The Samajwadi Party and the Uttar Pradesh unit of the Congress urged CJI Khanna to take cognisance of the statements.
The ‘Reinstatement of Values of Judicial Life’ adopted by the Full Court of the Supreme Court in 1997, followed by all the High Courts, mandate that “the behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reaffirm the people’s faith in the impartiality of the judiciary… Every judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”
Justice Yadav’s comments have drawn ire within the legal and political circles and among the public. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has questioned the impartiality of the judiciary. The All India Lawyers’ Union has written to the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna against Justice Yadav. Supreme Court Bar Association president, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, has reportedly called for the impeachment of the High Court judge.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJA,R) led by advocate Prashant Bhushan, in its letter to the Chief Justice of India, alleged that Justice Yadav’s participation in a “right-wing event” and his comments amounted to judicial impropriety, breach of his oath of office and violation of the fundamental rights of Muslims to equality before law, dignity and religious freedom. Supreme Court Bar Association president, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, has reportedly called for the impeachment of the High Court judge. CJAR has urged the Chief Justice of India to initiate the in-house procedure of inquiry against Justice Yadav.
Under the in-house procedure, adopted in 1999 and released into the public domain in 2014, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), on receiving a complaint of judicial misconduct, would forward it to the Chief Justice (CJ) of the High Court concerned. The CJ would seek a response from the judge in question. In case the CJ considers the allegations to be serious, he would return the complaint and the judge’s reply to the CJI.
The CJI, in his discretion, can appoint a three-member fact-finding committee of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and a High Court judge to inquire into the allegations. The judge in question can appear before the committee and have his say. If the committee report suggests there was sufficient material to remove the judge, the CJI can ask the latter to retire voluntarily. In case, the judge refuses to do so, the CJI can ask the Chief Justice of the High Court to suspend his work and intimate the President and the Prime Minister about the allegations along with the committee report. This may pave the way for the impeachment of the judge.
Meanwhile, a member of the VHP’s legal cell, which organised the event on UCC, defended the programme, saying that the views expressed by Justice Yadav should be seen in their correct context. “Justice Yadav simply maintained that the UCC should be implemented in its entirety on all countrymen irrespective of their religion or faith,” VHP legal cell’s Kshetriya Sanyojak Brijendra Singh said.
Notably, this is not the first time Justice Yadav made controversial remarks. In September 2021, he observed that “scientists believe that the cow is the only animal that exhales oxygen.” He also urged the Centre to declare the cow the national animal and make cow protection a “Fundamental Right of Hindus.”