
SC dropped probe on Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after Rajya Sabha alert
The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, people aware of the matter said.
The people cited above confirmed that then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether the judge's conduct warranted scrutiny in the wake of an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice. However, the move was halted after the Rajya Sabha secretariat's letter 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.
This letter effectively stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry – an internal mechanism laid down through judicial precedents to examine complaints of misconduct against sitting judges of the superior judiciary, against Justice Yadav, whose comments at the VHP's December 8, 2024, event in Prayagraj drew widespread condemnation for violating the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality.
HT reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately.
In February, Rajya Sabha chairman and vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter
'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. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,' he said in Parliament on February 13.
Justice Yadav, addressing a gathering organised by the legal cell of the VHP within the Allahabad High Court Bar Association premises, made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes.
In his speech, he reportedly asserted that 'India should function according to the wishes of the majority,' claimed 'only a Hindu can make this country a 'Vishwa Guru',' and linked practices such as triple talaq and halala to societal backwardness, calling for their abolition under the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using derogatory communal slurs.His remarks framed the UCC as a Hindu-Muslim binary, stating that while Hindu customs had evolved to address historical wrongs, Muslims had resisted reform.
The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics.' The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and his immediate suspension, citing a clear breach of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997.
Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court swiftly sought a report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes.
While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns 'consistent with constitutional values.' Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026.
People cited above said that CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But by then, an unexpected development complicated matters.
In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav's conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration.
'The court's secretary general brought the letter to the notice of the then CJI, who was clear that an in-house inquiry, being a non-statutory and internal mechanism, should not run parallel to a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,' a person familiar with the matter told HT. 'The Rajya Sabha's categorical assertion that it was seized of the matter prompted the judiciary to defer to the parliamentary process,' this person added.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates that a motion seeking removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must be admitted by the presiding officer of the House concerned. To be sure, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide on the admissibility of the motion and whether to constitute a formal inquiry committee.
'The idea was not to create constitutional friction or undermine parliamentary privilege…That's the sole reason why no in-house probe was set up despite the initial steps,' the person cited above added.
Another person aware of the deliberations within the collegium said that all members were informed of the decision to halt the in-house inquiry after the receipt of the Rajya Sabha's letter. 'There was a kind of consensus that the matter, being under legislative scrutiny, should not be clouded by a simultaneous judicial process,' the person said.
Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to push for clarity on the status of the impeachment motion. Speaking to HT on condition of anonymity, a senior MP said last month that his party planned to raise the matter during the monsoon session. 'During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was assessing the veracity of the signatures on the notice. We would like to know the status of that notice too...the notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up,' the lawmaker said.
In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav reportedly maintained in January that he has done no wrong. He described his speech as an articulation of issues affecting society and claimed that his references were misconstrued. On the criticism of his previous judicial orders related to cow protection, he is said to have responded that these reflected India's cultural ethos and legal recognition of cow protection, not any form of judicial bias.
Notably, Justice Yadav did not tender an apology in his correspondence, reinforcing his stance that his speech was neither communal nor violative of judicial conduct. He rather asserted that judges, who often face unfair attacks, deserve protection and support from senior members of the judiciary.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.


Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Akhilesh cites media report, says UP govt lied about Maha Kumbh stampede toll
Synopsis Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav has alleged that the Uttar Pradesh government misrepresented the death toll of the Maha Kumbh stampede. He cited a BBC report indicating a higher number of fatalities than the official count. Yadav questioned the compensation process for victims' families. He demanded transparency regarding cash disbursements and raised concerns about potential irregularities.


The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
What Ram Vilas Paswan did to Lalu in 2005 must haunt Nitish in 2025 as Chirag enters poll fray
The LJP has said that Paswan will contest from a general, not a reserved seat. He is looking to expand his party's support base beyond the six per cent Paswan votebank. But there is more to it than meets the eye. One must go back 20 years to understand why Nitish Kumar would be wary of Paswan's moves in Bihar. So, what is he up to? He was evasive when I asked him a couple of weeks back about the speculation around him contesting the Assembly poll. His party colleagues were thinking that it would bolster the party's prospects, he said. Plausible but not very convincing. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) is crowded in Bihar. Given that the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Janata Dal (United) are likely to contest around a hundred seats each, barely 35-40 remaining seats in the 243-member Assembly would be available for the other NDA constituents. This includes Paswan's LJP, Jitan Ram Manjhi's Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM) and Upendra Kushwaha's Rashtriya Lok Morcha. Paswan would, of course, get a lion's share of these remaining seats, but that's still not big enough for him to harbour large ambitions and enter the poll fray. Why would a Union Cabinet minister contest an Assembly election in which his party is a marginal player and the chief ministerial chair is seemingly out of bounds? Many in Bihar political circles are looking for an answer after food processing industries minister Chirag Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) declared on Sunday that he would contest the upcoming Assembly election. It's not casual political bravado, for sure. Look at the way he bounced back from a hopeless political situation after the death of his father, Ram Vilas Paswan, and desertion by his uncle and other party MPs. The 42-year-old leader has a wise head on young shoulders. In the February 2005 Assembly elections, Ram Vilas Paswan ended the Lalu Yadav family's 15-year rule. Three constituents of then ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) contested separately—the LJP, the Congress and Lalu Yadav's Rashtriya Janata Dal. Paswan senior fielded candidates against the RJD, but not against the Congress. The RJD emerged as the single largest party with 75 seats, the LJP with 29 seats, and the Congress with 10. If they came together, Lalu-Rabri's 15-year reign could have continued with the support of smaller parties. The NDA secured 92 seats. With 122 being the majority mark, Ram Vilas Paswan emerged as the kingmaker. He declared that he would join hands 'neither with the communal BJP nor with the corrupt and casteist RJD'. He said he would support a Muslim chief minister. He knew Lalu wouldn't agree. Ram Vilas forced a fresh election that brought Nitish Kumar as the CM, ending Lalu Yadav's reign. Also read: BJP has a new Muslim strategy up its sleeve. Saugat-e-Modi isn't just about Bihar election What's happening now Cut to 2020. Declaring himself as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hanuman, Chirag Paswan went after Nitish Kumar in the Assembly election, fielding candidates in constituencies where the JD(U) was contesting. Paswan didn't field candidates against the BJP, just as his father had stayed away from constituencies contested by the Congress 20 years ago. His party won only one seat in 2020 but was instrumental in the defeat of the JD(U) candidates in three dozen seats. Nitish Kumar was smarting as the JD(U) ended up with a mere 43 seats and the BJP emerged as the big brother with 74 seats. Nitish managed to become the CM, though. Now, in 2025, Prime Minister Modi's self-proclaimed Hanuman is in his Cabinet at the Centre. Paswan and Kumar are both part of the NDA. He has often praised the CM from public platforms. But that's hardly assuring for Nitish Kumar. Only last week, Paswan shot off a letter to the Bihar CM, targeting the state administration for the gang rape and murder of a nine-year-old Dalit girl in Muzaffarpur. 'This horrific crime is not only the brutal killing of an innocent life but also highlights a deep breakdown in law and order, social consciousness, and the public health system of Bihar,' wrote Chirag Paswan. Nitish Kumar couldn't have expected a more scathing indictment of his administration even from the Opposition. So, what is Chirag Paswan up to? His declaration to contest the election has come ahead of the seat-sharing negotiations. In 2020, the LJP got more votes than the JD(U) in 32 seats. Paswan would obviously stake a claim for these seats and more. Nitish Kumar would find it difficult to assert. His party had a very poor strike rate in 2020; it could win only 43 out of 115 seats that it contested. The BJP did much better—74 out of 110. So, who should give up seats if Chirag's demand has to be accommodated? Nitish Kumar, obviously. It may or may not happen, given Kumar's indispensability for the NDA in this election. But seat-sharing is just the beginning. Think of a scenario when Nitish Kumar ends up with less than 43 MLAs in the 2025 elections, the BJP maintains its 2020 strike rate, and Chirag Paswan's party ends up with 20-odd seats. Like his Late father in 2005, Chirag would emerge as the kingmaker. Goes without saying that the LJP chief would like to end Nitish Kumar's reign, just as his father ended Lalu's. In this hypothetical scenario, Kumar would obviously threaten to return to Lalu's camp if the numbers add up and if Lalu is willing to prop him up as the CM again. There are too many ifs here. And if Lalu Yadav is not willing to oblige Kumar, the BJP, with Paswan's backing, would love to realise its long-cherished dream of having its own CM in Bihar. Let's not overlook the fact that Nitish Kumar of 2025 wouldn't be in a position to keep his flock together if the BJP were to mount an offensive. Most of the top JD(U) leaders have worked very closely with the BJP. What if Chirag Paswan also has the numbers to take the opposition mahagathbandhan's tally to the majority mark? After all, Paswan has maintained a 'brotherly' relationship with Tejashwi, too. One can argue that Paswans are usually antagonistic to the RJD's core votebank, and so, Chirag is a better fit in the NDA. He also has a Cabinet berth at the Centre. But politics is all about possibilities. At least, that's what the BJP interlocutors would tell Nitish Kumar if Chirag happens to be in a kingmaker's role. Think of all these scenarios. You can't blame Bihari politicians if they see Modi's Hanuman's tail on fire as he enters the Bihar poll fray. DK Singh is Political Editor at ThePrint. He tweets @dksingh73. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)