Supreme Court Takes Note: Justice Yadav’s Speech Raises Questions on Judicial Impartiality and Ethics

The Supreme Court of India has summoned Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for a meeting next week following his inflammatory speech at an event organized by the legal cell of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). Delivered on December 8, Justice Yadav’s remarks, particularly those targeting the Muslim community and promoting majoritarian views, have sparked outrage and demands for immediate action. The controversy raises fundamental questions about judicial conduct, impartiality, and the mechanisms available to hold judges accountable.

Context of the Controversy

• Justice Yadav’s speech revolved around the topic of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). While the UCC is a constitutional promise aimed at ensuring uniform personal laws for all citizens, its discussion has remained contentious due to its implications on various religious communities.
• During his address, Justice Yadav made remarks suggesting that India should operate according to the wishes of the majority population.
• He used the derogatory term “kathmullah” to describe Muslims, further exacerbating the controversy. The term is widely recognized as a slur, deeply offensive and inappropriate for a sitting judge to use in public discourse.
• He also commented on practices such as nikah-halala and polygamy, both of which are subjects of pending judicial challenges. His statement “ye nahi chalega” (this will not be allowed) implied a predetermined stance, raising concerns about his ability to remain neutral in future cases on these topics.

Judicial Reaction and Immediate Steps

The speech drew immediate criticism from multiple quarters, prompting the Supreme Court to take administrative action:

• The Supreme Court Collegium swiftly called for details of the speech from the Allahabad High Court and decided to summon Justice Yadav for a meeting.
• On December 12, the Allahabad High Court altered Justice Yadav’s judicial roster. Effective from December 16, he is restricted to hearing only first appeals related to cases filed up to 2010. This decision effectively reduces his scope of judicial influence.

Public and Institutional Responses

• The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has lodged a formal complaint with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), calling for an in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct.
• Kapil Sibal and 55 Members of Parliament (MPs) submitted an impeachment motion to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General. This motion seeks to remove Justice Yadav for violating the principles of judicial impartiality and decorum.
• The controversy has reignited debates on the role of judges in public discourse and the fine line between free speech and the ethical boundaries expected of the judiciary.

Ethical Concerns and Judicial Values

Justice Yadav’s speech breached several principles outlined in the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ (1997), a Code of Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court for judges. The key violations include:

• Impartiality:
  • Judges are expected to uphold public confidence in their impartiality. Expressing biased views erodes this trust and damages the judiciary’s credibility.
• Avoiding Political Commentary:
  • Judges must refrain from making public statements on political matters or issues that may come before the court. Justice Yadav’s comments on the UCC, nikah-halala, and Article 370 violate this principle.
• Maintaining Public Confidence:
  • A judge’s conduct must consistently reflect the dignity of their office. Using derogatory language and endorsing political slogans undermine the respect and neutrality required of the judiciary.

Despite these clear violations, the Code of Conduct is advisory and does not carry enforceable penalties. This limitation highlights the challenges in disciplining judges for ethical breaches.

The Challenge of Impeachment

Impeaching a judge in India is an arduous process governed by Article 217 of the Constitution. The process requires:

• Initiation of the motion by a specified number of MPs.
• Acceptance by the Speaker or Chairman.
• A thorough inquiry by a judicial committee.
• A two-thirds majority vote in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for the motion to pass.

Given these stringent requirements, no judge in India’s history has ever been impeached. Therefore, while calls for Justice Yadav’s impeachment are significant, the likelihood of success remains low.

Broader Implications for Judicial Accountability

Justice Yadav’s case highlights systemic issues in addressing judicial misconduct:

• Inadequate Mechanisms: The current mechanisms for holding judges accountable are either advisory or too cumbersome to implement effectively.
• Need for Reform: The 195th Law Commission Report recommended making violations of the Code of Conduct grounds for impeachment. However, this recommendation has yet to be acted upon.
• Judiciary and Public Perception: In an age where judges are increasingly in the public eye, maintaining judicial decorum is critical to preserving public faith in the legal system.

Sources: Hindustan times & Bar and Bench.