[ad_1]
Political affiliations are seldom considered a disqualification to hold judicial office, but there is no doubt that open bigotry should be one. The controversial remarks of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, including an unacceptable slur against the Muslim community, at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) cast a shadow on his impartiality as a judge, if not his suitability to remain in office. Justice Yadav observed ominously that “this is India and it will be run as per the wishes of its majority”. It was clear from the context of a Hindu-Muslim dichotomy that he was speaking about, that he was not referring to a governing majority in a democracy, but the sort of numerical superiority that would give the larger group the final word on how the country is run. The judge also sought to compare Hindu and Muslim children and comment on how Hindus learn kindness and tolerance, while Muslims purportedly do not because they witness the slaughter of animals. He is previously known to have observed that the cow is the only animal that inhales and exhales oxygen and made remarks against conversion. It is a welcome development that the Supreme Court of India has taken note of reports highlighting Justice Yadav’s remarks and asked for details from the High Court. It is too early to speculate whether there will be an in-house inquiry, or a response to calls for his removal, but it is quite certain that the judge’s conduct and functioning will come under justified scrutiny.
Even though the event was a discussion on the need for a Uniform Civil Code, it was not an ideal stage for a meaningful debate. The VHP is an aggressive proponent of a Hindu majoritarian view, responsible for spearheading a violent movement for demolishing the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and installing a Ram temple in its place, and an organisation that has been banned in the past for fomenting riots, discord and much bloodshed. It was quite obvious that the forum would be more inclined to assail minorities than extol the virtues of a uniform law for civil matters. Judges of constitutional courts are not expected to grace the platform provided by such groups. It is regrettable that the judge forgot the ethical principles that bind the higher judiciary. In 1997, the Supreme Court had adopted a ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, a set of guidelines under which the behaviours and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reaffirm the people’s faith in the institution’s impartiality and any act that erodes such a perception should be avoided. While lapses from such principles are not rare, Justice Yadav presents a rather glaring example.
Published – December 12, 2024 12:10 am IST
[ad_2]
Bench and bigotry: On controversial remarks by Allahabad High Court judge
