Alok Kumar, International Working President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), expressed his discontent over the Union Law Ministry’s decision to publicly tweet about a private judges’ meeting held in New Delhi on September 8. The event, attended by former Supreme Court and High Court judges, focus
A significant lapse by the Union Law Ministry has stirred controversy after a tweet publicized a private judicial meeting held by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on September 8, 2024, in New Delhi. The confidential event, which was attended by former Supreme Court and High Court judges, was intended to discuss pivotal religious and judicial matters. Alok Kumar, VHP’s International Working President, has openly criticized the Law Ministry for this breach, calling the public disclosure a mistake and highlighting the event’s confidential nature.
Event Overview and Attendees
- The VHP Judges’ Meet was a closed-door event attended exclusively by retired judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts. Arjun Ram Meghwal, the Union Minister of State for Law and Justice (independent charge), was also present.
- The meeting aimed to discuss important topics for the betterment of India, focusing primarily on issues relating to religion and judicial reforms.
- Alok Kumar stressed the private nature of the gathering, remarking, “Only and only former retired judges attended the event. It was a closed-door event. Law Minister making picture public was a mistake.”
Key Issues Discussed
- The VHP-led meeting addressed a wide range of critical issues, including the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, the handing back of temples under government control, and the rising concerns over religious conversions.
- Kumar elaborated on the purpose of the gathering, stating, “We had invited retired judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The collective issues before the society — such as the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, handing back of temples, handing over of temples under government control (to the society), conversions etc — were discussed. The objective was free exchange of views between the judges and the VHP so that both develop an understanding of each other.”
The Tweet That Sparked Debate
- Controversy arose when Arjun Ram Meghwal posted pictures of the event on his official X (formerly Twitter) handle, disclosing details of the private meeting. Meghwal’s tweet read, “Today, by participating in the Judge’s Meet ceremony organized by the legal cell of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, we had an elaborate discussion on the topics related to judicial reforms related to the creation of a developed India.”
- This public exposure of what was intended to be a confidential discussion triggered a debate, with Kumar pointing out the ministry’s error in making the event public.
Attendance of Notable Figures
- Reports indicated that only retired judges were present, despite claims that current Delhi High Court judges attended. However, Kumar firmly denied these reports.
- Among the key figures present were Justice Rohit Arya, a retired Madhya Pradesh High Court judge who recently aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Justice Arya has openly expressed that his philosophy aligns with BJP ideals.
- Justice Hemant Gupta, a former Supreme Court judge, also attended. Justice Gupta gained public attention in October 2022 for his verdict in the Hijab case, supporting the Karnataka government’s order to ban hijabs in educational institutions, aimed at promoting uniformity and secularism.
- Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, another retired Supreme Court judge, also joined the event. He served as Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) until his retirement in July 2023.
Aftermath of the Leak and Public Reaction
- The accidental leak has raised concerns about the management of confidential meetings, particularly ones addressing sensitive judicial and religious matters.
- A VHP functionary, speaking anonymously, disclosed that two sitting judges were present at the event. However, Kumar vehemently denied this, reaffirming that only retired judges participated.
- This incident has cast a spotlight on the fine line between transparency and the need for discretion in government affairs, especially involving influential figures and sensitive issues.