– Mohammed Talha Siddi Bapa
New Delhi: The All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ) has revived the demand for an in-house inquiry against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav for making Islamophobic remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event held at Allahabad High Court’s Library Hall on December 8, 2024.
In a sharply worded statement on June 14, AILAJ said, “Bigotry is the antithesis of fraternity, and the judiciary must not tolerate it within its ranks.” The judge’s speech, delivered at a right-wing religious gathering, is being seen as a violation of judicial neutrality and constitutional values.
Legal Community Reacts
The demand for accountability has been echoed across civil society:
The Supreme Court collegium has reportedly expressed concern, terming the judge’s comments “avoidable” and “divisive.”
Senior advocates, including members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR), have called for an immediate probe, describing the speech as “hate speech” from the bench.
Opposition MPs from the INDIA bloc are reportedly exploring the possibility of an impeachment motion.
Voices of Alarm
The controversy has reignited debates about the judiciary’s independence under BJP rule. Several prominent voices have weighed in:
Indira Jaising, senior lawyer and rights activist, warned: “Secularism is under siege. The judiciary must resist the pull of majoritarianism or risk becoming complicit.”
Also Read: Jamiat(M) Urges CJI, Parliament to Act against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Former CJI N. V. Ramana had earlier cautioned against the growing executive control over agencies and its subtle influence on the judiciary, urging “robust institutional independence.”
Prashant Bhushan, known for legal activism, said the judge’s speech “violates every norm of judicial ethics” and demands serious institutional action.
Ajay Gudavarthy, political theorist, added, “What we’re witnessing is the slow corrosion of institutional impartiality – this isn’t about one judge, it’s about the judiciary’s soul.”
As the legal fraternity demands accountability, the spotlight is now firmly on the judiciary’s ability to self-correct. In a democracy, where the rule of law is supreme, even one partisan voice from the bench can shake public faith – unless confronted firmly.
