All India Lawyer’s Association for Justice revives demand for in-house inquiry against Justice Shekhar Yadav, seven months after hate speech
A recent report has suggested that the SC stopped short of an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav after the Rajya Sabha Secretariat claimed exclusive jurisdiction. A progressive lawyer’s body has now revived a long-stalled push to initiate enquiry and demand unconditional apology from the Allahabad HC judge.
Simran Kaur
Published on: 18 June 2025, 06:41 am
ON JUNE 14, ALL INDIA LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE (‘AILAJ’), a progressive lawyer’s organisation, issued a statement demanding an in-house inquiry against Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav for Islamophobic statements made in December 2024 at an event of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (‘VHP’), a Hindu right-wing organisation. In the statement issued by the AILAJ National Committee, the organisation stated, “Bigotry is the antithesis of fraternity, and the judiciary must not tolerate it within its ranks”.
Previously in December, AILAJ had demanded disciplinary action against Justice Yadav in a letter addressed to the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, citing usage of “derogatory language and display of disregard for the Constitution and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.” However, after the delay in admitting Justice Yadav’s impeachment motion by the Vice President, wide support shown by Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath, and subsequent refrain of the Supreme Court to hold an inquiry, AILAJ has now called for an in-house inquiry and appropriate punishment.
The National Committee stated, “failing to act against Justice Shekhar assumes a carte blanche for other judges with similar divisive mindsets to give public expression to their unconstitutional prejudices and biases.”
The demand comes in response to Justice Yadav’s speech made during a lecture on the “Constitutional Necessity of Uniform Civil Code” on December 8, 2024 in Prayagraj, organised by VHP. The speech markedly adopted a language that many characterised as a ‘hate speech’ against Indian Muslims. Justice Yadav stated, among other things, “My country is one where the cow, the Gita, and the Ganga form the culture, where every idol embodies Harbala Devi, and where every child is like Ram.” He went on to say, “Here, from childhood, children are guided towards god, taught Vedic mantras, and told about non-violence. But in your culture, from a young age, children are exposed to the slaughter of animals. How can you expect them to be tolerant and compassionate?”
Justice Yadav also used derogatory words such as ‘kathmullah’, a slur generally used against the Muslim community, and promoted Hindu majoritarianism, stating that “this country and law will function as per the wishes of the majority.”
Justice Yadav’s comments garnered wide political support among certain sections, even as civil society decried it as a violation of the judge’s oath, and allegiance pledged to the Constitution. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct also recognise ‘Impartiality’ and ‘Equality’ as a core principle. Principle 2.1 states that a judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice. Principle 5.2 states that a judge while performing judicial duties must not manifest bias or prejudice towards any religion. Justice Yadav’s comments sit in contrast to the constitutional principles as well as the UNODC’s principles. The AILAJ national committee also highlighted that laxity in action by the legislature or judiciary diminishes public faith in the institution of judiciary.
