A critical test for institutions
The letter reiterated the process as referred to by Rajya Sabha chairperson and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar previously in February in Parliament — that only Parliament and the President have the jurisdiction to proceed against the judge, who is in the dock for alleged hate speech against Muslims delivered in December 2024. Even as the Supreme Court took note of that speech, a group of 55 opposition MPs filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics'. As per the law, the removal of a high court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must go through Parliament. The chairperson will now have to decide on the admissibility of the motion and if an inquiry needs to be held.
The Rajya Sabha chairperson, who has been vocal about judicial integrity and institutional probity, should ensure that the complaint against the judge is now processed in a transparent manner and concluded before the judicial officer retires in April next year. A timely closure in the matter is necessary to ensure that there is no reputational damage to the judiciary, Parliament, or the concerned judge, in case he is found innocent of the alleged hate speech.
Interestingly, while Justice Yadav, reportedly, regretted his conduct and assured the Supreme Court collegium that he will render a public apology in a closed-door meeting with it in December, he has not issued one and instead defended his speech, delivered in a meeting of Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists in Prayagraj, as reflecting India's cultural ethos. A judge is bound by oath to protect constitutional values, not articulate majoritarian sentiments or populist views, even if they are part of some perceived cultural ethos. Any deviation is a violation of the oath and compromises the integrity of the judiciary.
The Justice Yadav case presents a critical test. It is not merely about the conduct of one judge but will have wider implications for the principle of separation of powers and commitment of public institutions to constitutional ideals. How this matter is now handled by the Rajya Sabha will set an important precedent for the future of India's democratic institutions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stray dog order spotlights poor pet registration in Delhi
The Supreme Court's recent directive to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has put the spotlight on another long-standing problem — the capital's dismal pet dog registration rate. Despite it being mandatory under Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) Act, only 5,767 pet dogs are registered in the city, with 381 applications pending, according to MCD data. The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. (AFP/Representational image) Officials warn that this gap leaves a dangerous grey area between pets and strays, opening the door to disputes and misuse of the complaint system. 'Registration and the token serve as proof of ownership. With the recent SC judgment, we expect a surge in applications, especially for adopted indigenous breeds,' said a senior MCD official. Non-registration can attract fines and prosecution under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with negligent behaviour with respect to animals. The Act also allows detention of unregistered dogs found in public places, a step veterinary officials say is rarely enforced. Experts warn that poor compliance risks deepening confusion and triggering disputes. Gauri Maulekhi, activist and trustee at People for Animals (PFA), said the lack of registration creates a grey area between pets and community dogs. 'Some people collar strays, keep them indoors for long periods, or adopt indies as full-fledged pets. If neither strays nor pets are tagged, it's bound to cause confusion,' she said, adding that this could even pit neighbours against each other. 'A neighbour might report my dog as a stray, or conversely, collar a stray and claim it's a long-time pet.' The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. Asher Jesudoss, whose 2022 plea in the Delhi high court led to the creation of the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, said that since very few dogs are registered in Delhi, one can find it difficult to differentiate between pets and strays. 'As the name suggests, community dogs are those that belong to the entire community. But nothing stops an individual from collaring the stray and taking it indoors and keeping it as a pet. As per our rules, all breeds and dogs need to be registered. MCD needs to register all pets as proving ownership otherwise becomes tricky,' he said. Pet registration can be done online, with a uniform ₹500 fee. A veterinary official said actual registrations are far below the real number of pets. 'We issue a brass token for the dog's collar, which also lets us track vaccination status,' the official added.
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court's stray dog order: Amicus report flagged ‘fundamental right' to move freely without fear of dog bite or assault
Underlining the fundamental right of a human being to move freely without the fear of a dog bite or assault, the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae had recommended relocating stray dogs to shelters and not releasing them back on the streets. In his recommendations to the court before Monday's order, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus in the case, said: 'Putting the dog back on the street, where there is grave harm to us, is a direct violation of our fundamental rights to move freely without the fear of a dog bite/ assault.' On Monday, the court directed the authorities in Delhi-NCR to relocate all stray dogs to dedicated dog shelters, underlining that they should not be released back on the streets. 'The 2023 Rules somehow seems to suggest that the fundamental rights of stray dogs to roam around in the street(s), attack human beings and create public nuisance is at a higher pedestal than the fundamental rights of human beings,' the amicus report said. The 2023 Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules deal with the management of stray dog and cat population. The Rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. While the ABC Rules mandate that stray dogs be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation, the amicus report said there is 'absolutely no material to suggest that the sterilisation would eliminate the chance of the dog biting.' 'In almost all developed countries, there are no stray dogs on the streets,' the report said. 'There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that our streets/ public places should be free from stray dogs,' it added. Citing rising dog bite data, the report said: 'The presence of stray dogs on our streets/ public places like airports, railway stations is a direct infringement of our fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21 (right to move freely and the right to life respectively) of the Constitution of India.' Citing government data, it said that in 2024, there were 37,15,713 reported dog bites across the country and 25,201 dog bites in Delhi. According to the report, Delhi had 3,196 cases of dog bites in January alone. 'If figures of January 2025 are any indication, the cases of dog bites have increased by 50%,' the report said. The report suggested that the Court could issue directives to municipal authorities in Delhi to 'begin by creating dog shelter(s) for say 5,000 dogs in the next 6-8 weeks.' It also recommended that stray dogs captured would be detained in shelters and 'would not be released on the streets/ public spaces under any circumstance.' The amicus also recommended that stray dogs captured may be put up for adoption to individuals through animal welfare organisations.
Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Sports Bill not an intervention from the government: Mandaviya
New Delhi: The National Sports Governance Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday. Aimed at bringing reforms in sports administration and making sports bodies transparent, the bill was cleared by the Lok Sabha on Monday and all set to be notified as an act. Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya in the Rajya Sabha during the Monsoon session of Parliament, in New Delhi. (Sansad TV) This is the first time that a legislation on sports has been framed in the country. Until now, the National Sports Code, 2011, along with various court orders on good governance, provided the legal framework for the national sports federations, IOA and other sports bodies to follow. However, it has long been felt that a single, comprehensive law, binding on all sports federations, is needed to streamline governance and bring transparency. The bill has divided opinions. Critics of the National Sports Governance bill have pointed out that the legislation is an attempt by the government to take 'control' of the sports federations which are 'autonomous' bodies and owe their allegiance to international sports federations and Olympic charter. Another fear expressed by some experts is that provisions of the bill like relaxing age and tenure restrictions of officials, will throw water on years of 'good governance' practices the top courts of the country have imposed on the federations. The NSFs get the majority of their funds from the government and that makes them answerable. Despite guidelines and directives of good practices, transparency and ethics enshrined in the Sports Code and court orders, federations are still not run professionally. Litigations related to elections, administrative wrongdoings, and even selection matters -- especially during major international events -- are so common that it has hampered governance of federations, eventually impacting athletes and India's chances. Allaying apprehension of government's interference in federation matters, Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya told the upper house that the intention through this bill is to play a 'supportive role' so that Indian athletes can perform to their true potential and enhance the country's performance at the international level. 'Government has no intention to interfere in the functioning of sports federations. The National Sports Board (which will register sports bodies) will operate in an independent manner. All disputes will be taken up by the National Sports Tribunal and when elections happen in federations, the National Sports Election Panel will do a transparent election. There will be no intervention from the government,' said Mandaviya. The sports federations will have to align their constitution as per the legislation. 'This bill will usher in transparency, accountability, and gender parity. It will empower athletes and build confidence among sponsors and federations. It is about justice and fair-play,' said Indian Olympic Association President PT Usha, a Rajya Sabha member, during discussion on the bill. Usha said the bill will give a push to India's ambition to host the 2036 Olympics. 'This legislation comes at a time when India is dreaming big, dreaming for its rightful share in the global sporting fraternity by hosting the 2036 Olympics. It is a clarion call for action,' she said. 'This bill is a critical pillar of a grand vision. Let us see this as a moral promise, a promise that athletes will no longer be let down by an apathetic system,' she said. Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh felt this would lead to 'extreme centralisation'. 'The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 was bulldozed through the Lok Sabha yesterday (on Monday and will perhaps be subject to the same treatment in the Rajya Sabha today,' he said on X. 'The Bill will result in the extreme centralisation of sports administration. And, of course, the BCCI will get the most favoured treatment, not subject to any laws of the land like the RTI.' The challenge will be to implement the provisions in states and district level with sports being part of the state subject. All affiliate units of national sports bodies also have to be registered with the Board.
