The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over his controversial public comments at a VHP event. However, the plan was dropped after the Rajya Sabha secretariat intervened, asserting that any such action falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of Parliament and the President.
Background
Justice Yadav had sparked outrage with a speech at a VHP event in December 2024, where he reportedly made remarks targeting the Muslim community, promoted majoritarian views, and linked personal law practices like triple talaq to societal backwardness. His statements were widely seen as a violation of judicial ethics and the principles of secularism.
Video clips of the speech, which went viral, showed Justice Yadav allegedly using communal slurs and framing the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a Hindu-Muslim issue. He was heard using phrases such as ‘hamaari Gita, aapki Quran’ and a derogatory term ‘kathmullah’, which many observers classified as hate speech.
The speech led to a sharp response from civil society, legal experts, and opposition MPs. A motion for impeachment was initiated in the Rajya Sabha — a rare move, given that only seven such motions have been attempted in Indian history, none completed.
What Happened Next
The Supreme Court Collegium, led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, initiated a review after receiving an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice. Justice Yadav was summoned by the Collegium and reportedly agreed to apologise publicly — but later reversed course, stating in writing that his comments had been misrepresented and were consistent with constitutional values.
Meanwhile, 55 MPs, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, filed an impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha, citing a “grave violation of judicial ethics.” The Rajya Sabha secretariat then formally informed the SC that the matter was already under Parliamentary review, making any parallel in-house inquiry inappropriate under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Supreme Court Stance
Given this, the Supreme Court decided not to proceed with its internal inquiry to avoid constitutional friction and to respect Parliament’s jurisdiction over the matter.
The Collegium reportedly agreed that the judicial process should not run parallel to an ongoing legislative process.
Historical Context: A Rare Case of Hate Speech Charges Against a Sitting Judge
Justice Yadav’s case marks a significant moment in India’s judicial history. It is likely the first recorded instance of a sitting judge facing disciplinary action for alleged hate speech. Previous inquiries typically centred on financial misconduct or corruption.
India’s process for judicial accountability is complex:
-
Impeachment requires motions supported by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, followed by a judicial inquiry committee, and special majority votes in both Houses — a process so rigorous that no Indian judge has ever been removed through it.
-
The in-house inquiry mechanism, developed by the Supreme Court in the 1990s (notably after the controversial Justice V. Ramaswami case), allows the CJI to initiate an internal investigation. Corrective measures can include advising resignation or withdrawal from judicial work.
However, as past examples like the Ramaswami saga and various failed legislative efforts (such as the lapsed Judges Inquiry Bill, 2006, and the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010) show, the Indian system lacks clearly codified minor disciplinary measures such as warnings, temporary suspension of judicial work, or censure.
Globally, countries like the US and the UK have well-defined legal provisions to impose minor penalties on judges without requiring the full impeachment process.
In India, the opacity of in-house proceedings and the lack of a structured, transparent system for handling allegations like hate speech leave the judiciary vulnerable to both criticism and political pressures.
What’s Next?
The Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide whether to admit the impeachment motion and set up a formal inquiry committee.
Meanwhile, opposition lawmakers are demanding clarity on the motion’s status and plan to raise the issue in the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament.
Justice Yadav’s Response
In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav stood by his statements.
“I have done no wrong. My comments have been misinterpreted by vested interests,” he reportedly wrote.
Defending his past judicial orders on cow protection, he added:
“These rulings are in line with India’s cultural ethos and legal framework, and do not reflect any personal or judicial bias.”
Notably, Justice Yadav did not offer an apology in his correspondence.
Justice Yadav, who was appointed in 2019, is scheduled to retire in April 2026.
Why This Matters
This case underscores the delicate balance between judicial accountability and constitutional process. It also highlights the need for the judiciary to evolve transparent mechanisms for addressing ethical violations that may not warrant removal, but still demand action — especially in cases involving hate speech and communal bias.
As Justice Hrishikesh Roy remarked after retirement, the Supreme Court currently exercises only a “soft” power in such situations. Whether this case leads to greater clarity and codification of such powers remains to be seen.
For now, the Justice Yadav controversy has brought to the fore long-standing concerns about judicial ethics, separation of powers, and public trust in the judiciary.
