After Letter From Rajya Sabha, SC Dropped Plan to Probe Allahabad HC Judge's Remarks at VHP Event
Law
The Wire Staff
Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court.
Allahabad high court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav at a VHP event. Photo: Special arrangement.
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute Now
New Delhi: While the Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial remarks at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), it dropped the plan after a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat told the apex court that the matter is under its exclusive jurisdiction.
Citing people aware of the matter, Hindustan Times reported that the move was halted after a letter from the Rajya Sabha in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President.
As a result, the letter stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav. Prior to this, following an adverse report from the chief justice of Allahabad high court, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether Justice Yadav's conduct warranted scrutiny.
The newspaper reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately.
Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court.
'Honourable members, I am seized of an undated notice for motion received on 13 December 2024, bearing 55 purported signatures of the members of the Rajya Sabha seeking removal from office of Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad High Court under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the Chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and Honourable President,' Dhankhar had said.
Dhankhar's remarks had come after a motion was submitted by 55 Opposition MPs citing Justice Yadav's alleged misconduct.
On December 8 last year, while speaking at the event organised by VHP, Justice Yadav, had said that India would function only as per the wishes of the 'majority,' referring to the Hindu community. He even used the controversial term 'kathmulla' to refer to a section of Muslims who engaged in practices such as having four wives and triple talaq, describing them as 'fatal' to the nation.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Law
'Matter of Serious Concern': Court on Missing Inquiry File About Security of AugustaWestland Accused
View More
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
33 minutes ago
- NDTV
No, India Is Not Israel, And Pak Is Not Palestine
In the immediate aftermath of the April 2022 Pahalgam terror attack - where Indian civilians were targeted in a region long destabilised by cross-border militancy - an old but deeply flawed analogy began circulating with renewed vigour: that India is becoming Israel, with Pakistan being touted as the new 'Palestine'. This comparison, invoked by a range of commentators from populist influencers to academic quarters, attempts to overlay the Middle Eastern fault lines onto South Asia. However, while superficially tempting, this analogy is strategically misleading, historically untrue, and morally hazardous. At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a struggle between a militarily dominant state and a stateless people living under occupation. It is defined by asymmetric power, a denial of sovereignty, and ongoing territorial annexation. India and Pakistan, by contrast, are both fully sovereign states that emerged from a negotiated partition of British India in 1947, each with their own internationally recognised borders and UN memberships. The bilateral conflict, especially over Kashmir, stems not from a denial of statehood but from unresolved territorial claims. Pakistan's continued insistence on linking Kashmir to Palestine flattens these distinctions and obfuscates the history of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism across Indian territory - from Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir to episodic destabilisation in India's Northeast. Equating Pakistani actions with Palestinian resistance also undermines the moral and strategic integrity of the Palestinian cause. It erases the fact that, unlike Palestinians under occupation, Pakistan has used its sovereign apparatus to sponsor and shelter groups involved in acts of terror. This deliberate state complicity - acknowledged even by global institutions - makes Pakistan an aggressor, not an aggrieved actor. Minorities, Democracy, and Statehood One of the more dangerous simplifications of the analogy lies in the misrepresentation of internal minority politics in both regions. It is true that India is facing criticism over recent communal tensions, polarised discourse, and policies perceived as marginalising Muslims. However, equating that with the condition of Palestinians under occupation ignores the difference between a flawed democracy and an apartheid state structure. In India, Muslims remain an electorally significant, constitutionally recognised group whose cultural, linguistic, and religious institutions are protected under law. Their political presence - though under strain - remains visible. From Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the country's first Education Minister, to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, one of India's most beloved Presidents, the leadership and legacy of Indian Muslims is historically well-anchored. In contemporary times, figures like Asaduddin Owaisi, a staunch government critic, and Salman Khurshid, a senior Congress leader with no constitutional post, were both part of an all-party delegation sent abroad to brief international counterparts in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Their inclusion, despite being politically oppositional, signals a rare bipartisan consensus on matters of national security. Contrast this with Pakistan, where Ahmadiyyas are constitutionally barred from calling themselves Muslims, and Shias are frequently targeted in sectarian violence. The state's own structures are often complicit in marginalising non-Sunni groups, with blasphemy laws regularly weaponised against minorities. These are not merely social biases but systemic exclusions - legally and politically embedded. Meanwhile, in Palestine, the question is not one of minority rights within a sovereign state but of basic human existence under foreign occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live without freedom of movement, due legal process, or political autonomy. Lumping these distinct contexts together does violence to the nuance required to address each problem on its own terms. Terrorism, Occupation, and Policy India's security doctrine has consistently emphasised that its conflict is not with the people of Pakistan but with its military-intelligence apparatus and its use of terrorism as statecraft. From the insurgency in Kashmir and the Khalistani separatist movement in Punjab to arms flowing into the Northeast in the 1980s and 1990s, India's internal challenges have often traced back to external sponsorship. These were not acts of a stateless community demanding dignity but the result of a neighbour using irregular war to destabilise a regional adversary. Israel, by contrast, has often responded to Palestinian armed resistance with disproportionate force - demolishing homes, bombing refugee camps, and applying collective punishment policies. These actions have generated global concern about human rights violations, and rightly so. However, attempts to map these punitive actions onto India's counter-terror operations obscure the scale, nature, and intent of both countries' military strategies. What makes the analogy particularly hollow is India's long-standing commitment to the Palestinian cause. Even under the Modi government, which has expanded strategic ties with Israel, India has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution and spoken against occupation at UN fora. Far from mimicking Israeli policy, India has walked a diplomatic tightrope - deepening bilateral defence relations with Israel while maintaining principled solidarity with Palestine. Conflating these divergent positions is not only analytically lazy but diplomatically counterproductive. It risks damaging India's credibility in the Global South, especially at a time when New Delhi seeks to position itself as a mediator and developmental partner in multilateral spaces. More importantly, it insults the Palestinian struggle by associating it with Pakistan's agenda of using terrorism and religious nationalism as tools of foreign policy. Reject Lazy Analogies Both the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts demand global attention. But attention should not mean abstraction. The occupation of Palestine is a human rights crisis rooted in land, displacement, and statelessness. The India-Pakistan dynamic, while also involving land and identity, is situated in a very different matrix: of two sovereign nations, one of which has routinely used terrorism to internationalise what is essentially a bilateral issue. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause should not be hijacked to justify flawed analogies that exonerate state complicity in South Asia. Nor should India's legitimate counterterrorism operations be lumped with settler-colonial violence. Doing so only weakens both struggles - reducing history, diplomacy, and suffering to hashtags. In times of polarisation, strategic clarity is not just a virtue, it is a necessity. India is not Israel. Pakistan is not Palestine. And equating them does justice to neither the complexity of history nor the urgency of peace. (Ashraf Nehal is an author, analyst and columnist, who writes on South Asian geopolitics, climate action and world affairs. He was a former PM Young Writing Fellow)
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Our Relationship Not Limited To Politics": Rahul Gandhi On Lalu Yadav
New Delhi: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi greeted RJD president Lalu Prasad Yadav on his birthday on Wednesday and said their relationship is not limited to politics but is a deep human bond based on common values and the struggle for social justice. Mr Yadav, a former chief minister of Bihar, turned 77 on Wednesday. "Happy Birthday to former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD President Lalu Prasad Yadav Ji. Our relationship has not been limited to politics - it has been a deep human bond, based on common values and the struggle for social justice," Mr Gandhi said in a post in Hindi on X. "Your life has been full of struggles, but you have always raised your voice with strength and courage for those who are often unheard," the former Congress president said. "Today on your birthday, I wish you good health and a long life," Mr Gandhi said. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge also extended birthday wishes to Mr Yadav. "I wish you good health and a long life," Mr Kharge said. The Congress and the RJD are alliance partners and will be contesting the upcoming Bihar polls as part of the Mahagathbandhan against the NDA coalition.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Sri Lanka's 13th Amendment at a Crossroads: Can the NPP Deliver on Minority Rights and Devolution?
Published : Jun 11, 2025 14:42 IST - 5 MINS READ Until a new, inclusive constitution is developed, Sri Lanka should implement the provisions of the 13th Amendment to its Constitution and hold elections to the provincial councils in the island nation, an academic study has said. The study, titled 'Divided and weakened: the collapse of minority politics in Sri Lanka', has been authored by Sri Lankan-British scholar Farah Mihlar and was released on June 11 by the Minority Rights Group, an international human rights organisation, and Oxford Brookes University. According to the study, the need of the hour was 'constitutional reforms that strengthen minority rights and non-discrimination'. The study also wanted the Sri Lankan government to find 'a political solution to the ethnic conflict acceptable to all communities that involves devolving power to minorities beyond the Thirteenth Amendment.' Also Read | Anura Dissanayake: The outsider with a difference The report acknowledged the fact that the Anura Kumara Dissanayake-led National People's Power (NPP) government, with its two-thirds majority, has a unique opportunity to transform the national narrative. Historic opportunity for NPP It said: 'The NPP historic opportunity to produce a constitution that represents all communities in Sri Lanka. Considering the many rights and justice claims that have a long history and were causes of the conflict, earnestly resolving them should be a priority for all political parties, mainstream national and ethnic minority ones alike, to ensure a just and lasting peace in Sri Lanka.' The 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution devolves powers to the Tamil-dominated Northern and Eastern provinces, and was part of an accord signed by Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayawardene and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1987. That accord still remains the only hope for some autonomy for the Tamils of Sri Lanka. Rajiv Gandhi's defeat in the 1989 general election and the subsequent instability in India's polity for the next few years gave Sri Lanka the escape route it was looking for. The killing of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 and the lack of interest in the Sri Lankan solution during Narasimha Rao's tenure as Prime Minister (1991-96) ensured that India did not push forward the implementation of the accord. However, many Sri Lankan politicians, across the ethnic divide, find the 13th Amendment unacceptable. Sinhala politicians consider it Indian interference in Sri Lankan affairs, while Tamil politicians say that the amendment will be of no effective consequence because power will only be transferred from the Sinhala majoritarian government in Colombo to the Governors appointed by the same federal government to the provinces. The NPP government, which was propelled to power because of people's disenchantment with the established political parties, has held elections to the local bodies. But so far, it has not announced a firm date for elections to the provincial councils. In the local body elections, NPP won a huge majority, winning over 250 of the 339 local body councils, but its vote share dropped by an alarming 34 per cent compared to the 2024 parliamentary election. In April 2025, when Dissanayake met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, Modi urged him to hold provincial elections. Collapse of minority politics The Farah Mihlar study noted that 'ethnic minority parties from all three minority communities [Tamils, Muslims and plantation Tamils] have splintered into several factions, and the larger, more popular ones are internally deeply divided. These divides have been caused in part as a consequence of majoritarian nationalism, but also due to weak leadership and allegations of corruption within parties.' The study concluded that minorities in the country have 'lost almost all space in the big political parties in Sri Lanka'. These parties cater to Sinhala nationalism and view this as the one and only route to political power. Minority politics in the nation is collapsing because of a host of factors ranging from corruption to minority political parties taking extreme positions. Since the end of the civil war in 2009, prominent minority parties, including the largest party, the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), have struggled to define their political path, given the prevalence of Tamil ultranationalism in the areas formerly affected by the civil war. The study said: 'Ethnic minority parties from among the second largest minority, Muslims, and the smaller Malaiyaga Tamil community (of recent Indian origin), present a story of disarray, division and lost credibility. These parties have erratically switched allegiances with nationalist mainstream parties trying to capitalise on shifting alliances and coalition formation, which eventually damaged them deeply. Their own lack of openness to new leadership and progressive reforms, amidst allegations of corruption, has not helped their cause.' Change in strategy At the national level, the study noted that there has been a change in strategy on minority representation: instead of fielding minority candidates, these parties are forming alliances and coalitions with ethnic minority parties while offering less space inside their own parties for both minority representatives and minority issues. Also Read | Is Sri Lanka witnessing a shift in its ethnic politics? It added: 'Minority representatives who have been elected from the former two major parties, the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), and their various fronts have felt isolated, with little opportunity to take up minority issues in national party agendas.' It is in this context that recent NPP actions in many councils need to be seen. In Batticaloa, for instance, ITAK joined hands with the main opposition party, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya. to win the post of Mayor. The NPP, which stands for clean politics, joined hands with Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Puligal, whose leader, Pillayan, is in jail on a kidnapping and killing charge. He is also accused of aiding and abetting those behind the April 2019 Easter attacks. Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, MP and ITAK leader, said: 'Given that Pillayan remains in custody over multiple serious allegations, the NPP's willingness to align with such a figure in pursuit of power has raised serious concerns.' As of today, with 159 MPs NPP's dominance in parliament is absolute. But it is increasingly under attack for its policies and what is seen as a lack of competence in governance. Despite the setbacks in governance, NPP has the unique opportunity to go beyond what other ruling combines have attempted on the political reconciliation front so far.
