Latest news with #ShekharKumarYadav
The Print
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Print
House panel discusses judges' ‘misconduct', ‘cooling-off period' before taking up post-retirement jobs
MPs, including one from the ruling BJP also questioned why an FIR has not been filed in the Justice Yashwant Varma case yet, and why the Chief Justice o,f India has not taken any action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, 'whose actions constituted a violation of code of conduct', an opposition MP, who attended the meeting told ThePrint. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, headed by BJP MP Brij Lal, also saw lawmakers having a heated discussion on how relatives of judges continue to practice in the same court in blatant violation of the Supreme Court's 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life , the primary code of ethics governing judicial behaviour. New Delhi: A parliamentary panel Tuesday held an animated discussion on violations of code of conduct for judges of higher judiciary, focusing on concerns about some judges misusing their position to secure post-retirement jobs. Lawmakers who attended the meeting told ThePrint that the need for a cooling period before judges can take up post-retirement assignments was among the suggestions made at the meeting. A huge cache of burnt currency notes was found in the storeroom of Justice Varma's official residence in March, while Justice Yadav has drawn sharp criticism for making controversial remarks about Muslims at a VHP event in December last year. Several MPs also spoke about how some judges have political aspirations. 'MPs raised the issue of some judges abusing their power, passing orders against opposition party leaders and then resigning and joining political parties,' said an opposition MP, adding that the members also talked about 'how some judges have political ideology, which reflects in their order…. They go and attend political meetings as well.' According to a source, it was in this context that an opposition MP suggested that like in bureaucracy, there should be a cooling-off period of 5 years for judges before they can take up post-retirement jobs. The source said, 'Another MP also suggested that to stop such abuse of power, the retirement age of judges should be increased, and they should be given good pensions so that they do not take up post-retirement assignments.' In its report tabled in the Rajya Sabha on 7 February, 2024, the Parliamentary committee had stated that it was of the view that the retirement age of judges should be raised and 'the practice of post-retirement assignments to judges of Supreme Court and High Courts in bodies/institutions financed from public exchequer may be reassessed to ensure their impartiality.' 'The committee suggests that the entire gamut of issues related to such appointments of retired judges may be comprehensively studied again and relooked upon by the Ministry,' it had said in the report. Also read: The summer vacation conundrum: How SC, advocates view 'partial court working days' 'Kith and kin should not be allowed to practice in same court' Several MPs also vociferously spoke out against how relatives of judges practice in the same court and reside in the same house in blatant violation of code of conduct, sources said. 'MPs said that the 1997 guidelines clearly mentions that kith and kin should not practice in the same court. If it happens, then either the judge should be transferred or the kith and kin should stop practicing,' the sources said. The MPs, both from the ruling BJP and the opposition, also sought to know from Raj Kumar Goyal, the justice secretary, about the number of complaints pending in the Supreme Court and the High Courts across states against judges for violation of code of conduct. The justice secretary, who was summoned for the meeting, sought time to respond to the issues raised by the MPs. Sources said that in his presentation before the parliamentary panel members, Goyal said that every time the department brings a bill, it does not fructify. 'He gave the example of NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission Act) and how it was struck down,' one of the sources said. In 2015, the Supreme Court had struck down NJAC, which would have replaced the Collegium system, where the senior most sitting judges of the apex court recommend judges to be appointed to the higher judiciary. The source added that MPs also sought to know from Goyal about how many judges have uploaded their assets, as mandated by the code of conduct. 'To this, the justice secretary answered that he will have to check,' the source said. It is not mandatory for judges to put their assets in the public domain. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court had in 2007 decided to place the assets of judges on the apex court's website, but on a voluntary basis. The opposition MP quoted earlier said that parliamentary panel members also raised the issue of how some judges keep on abusing advocates and lawyers in open court and sought to know if it could be brought under the purview of code of conduct. 'They (MPs) also asked how to restrict judges from making unnecessary and unwarranted political comments in the court that are not connected with the case that they are handling,' the opposition MP added. (Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri) Also read: Decade after City Kinara fire, some closure for victims' kin as HC makes 'grossly negligent' BMC pay
Time of India
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Justice Yadav's anti-Muslim rhetoric is not an impeachable offence
Why Justice Yadav's anti-Muslim rhetoric is not an impeachable offence The push to impeach Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad HC for a speech attacking Muslim practices is a good time to rethink the notion of blasphemy laws in a modern society
New Indian Express
11-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Sibal questions Dhankhar's 'inaction' after SC drops probe into Allahabad HC judge
NEW DELHI: Amid reports that the Supreme Court dropped its investigation against Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav following an intervention from the Rajya Sabha, Upper House MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has not taken any action on the notice seeking an impeachment motion against the judge. Addressing media in the capital, Sibal, who is also a senior advocate and SCBA president, said the whole incident smacks of 'discrimination.' He alleged that the government is attempting to save the judge after he made 'entirely communal' remarks last year. 'On one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to the 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, which was not done in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma,' he 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. Speaking on the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Yadav of Allahabad HC 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. Speaking at a VHP event, he had stated that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'Bahusankhayak' (majority) and that the Uniform Civil Code would soon become a reality.
Hindustan Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
A critical test for institutions
The Supreme Court stopped short of instituting an internal probe into the conduct of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, following a March letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat raising issues of jurisdiction, this newspaper reported Monday. 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.
Hindustan Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
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 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 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.
