The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has written to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna urging the constitution of an “in-house enquiry” against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for attending a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event and delivering a controversial speech targeting the Muslim community. CJAR contended that Justice Yadav’s participation and statements not only violated constitutional principles but also cast serious doubts on the judiciary’s independence and impartiality.
Violation of Constitutional Values
CJAR argued that Justice Yadav’s statements breached fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which ensure secularism, equality before the law, and religious freedoms. The letter emphasized that such remarks by a sitting judge undermine public faith in the judiciary’s neutrality and contradict the Preamble’s guiding principles.
Judicial Impropriety and Breach of Conduct
The organization highlighted that Justice Yadav’s participation in a political event and his communally charged statements violated the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” (1997). Key breaches include:
- Impartiality and Perception: Judges must reaffirm the public’s trust in the judiciary’s impartiality.
- Aloofness: Judges must maintain dignified aloofness consistent with their office.
- Political Restraint: Judges must not publicly comment on political or religious matters.
- Public Gaze: Judges must avoid any conduct unbecoming of their high office.
CJAR’s Demands
The CJAR urged the CJI to immediately:
- Constitute an in-house enquiry committee to investigate Justice Yadav’s conduct.
- Withdraw all judicial responsibilities from Justice Yadav pending the enquiry.
The letter stressed that Justice Yadav’s remarks not only violated his judicial oath but also compromised his ability to deliver impartial justice. CJAR called his actions a direct threat to constitutional values and judicial integrity.
Concerns Over Public Confidence
CJAR argued that communal statements by a High Court judge erode public faith in the judiciary’s fairness, especially when they come from a constitutional court. Such incidents, they asserted, demand a strong institutional response to safeguard the judiciary’s reputation and constitutional ethos.
Significance of Judicial Neutrality
Judges are expected to uphold the Constitution with absolute impartiality, irrespective of personal or ideological beliefs. Justice Yadav’s speech, CJAR maintained, contradicted this principle, necessitating immediate corrective action.
This issue underscores the critical need for transparency and adherence to constitutional values in judicial conduct, especially in a diverse and secular democracy like India.
Lawcutor 