The Supreme Court collegium on Tuesday held a rare meeting with Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court to address his controversial remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event earlier this month. His statements, perceived as targeting the Muslim community and invoking majority rule, sparked concerns about judicial impartiality and adherence to constitutional values.
The meeting, held in Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s chambers, lasted 30 minutes and included all five collegium members: Justices Bhushan R. Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy, and Abhay S. Oka, along with the CJI. Following the group discussion, Justice Yadav had a one-on-one interaction with CJI Khanna, during which he was counselled on judicial neutrality and constitutional propriety.
Sources revealed that the collegium reviewed a transcript of Justice Yadav’s speech at the VHP event before the meeting. Justice Yadav was asked to clarify his remarks, explain his intentions, and address concerns raised by his comments.
“The collegium ensured adherence to natural justice by giving Justice Yadav an opportunity to present his side before taking any further steps,” said a source familiar with the proceedings. “He has been asked to provide additional explanations, after which the collegium will decide on the next course of action.”
The controversy stems from a December 8 speech in Prayagraj, where Justice Yadav reportedly asserted that India should function according to the wishes of the majority, referring to Hindus as the country’s rightful leaders. In viral video clips, he allegedly remarked, “This is Hindustan, and this country would function as per the wishes of the ‘bahusankhyak’ [majority],” and, “Only a Hindu can make this country a ‘Vishwa Guru.’” He also criticized practices like triple talaq and halala, calling for their abolition under a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
The remarks drew widespread condemnation. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, supported by over 50 opposition MPs, filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav’s impeachment, citing a “grave violation of judicial ethics.” The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also called for an inquiry, alleging his comments breached the Supreme Court’s Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and the global Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
During the meeting, the collegium reportedly assessed whether Justice Yadav’s conduct violated ethical frameworks like the Restatement of Values and the Bangalore Principles. Depending on his explanations, the collegium may consider options such as an in-house inquiry, reprimand, or transfer to another high court.
“The collegium is proceeding cautiously to balance fairness with concerns about judicial impartiality,” a source said. “The sensitivity of the issue requires meticulous consideration before any decision is made.”
Justice Yadav has previously faced criticism for his remarks. In 2021, he advocated for laws honoring Hindu religious texts and granting cows fundamental rights. He also denied bail in a religious conversion case, arguing that such acts undermined national integrity.
The Supreme Court has handled similar controversies in the past. In September, it reprimanded a Karnataka High Court judge for describing a Muslim-dominated area as “Pakistan,” closing the matter after the judge issued an unconditional apology.
The resolution of Justice Yadav’s case could establish an important precedent for addressing judicial impropriety in India. While a final decision is pending, it is unlikely he will meet the collegium again.
