“There is nothing wrong in a judge to have ambition to achieve something, but if the ambition to achieve is likely to cause compromise with his divine judicial duty, better not to pursue it.”
– Tarak Singh vs Jyoti Basu (2005)
We all must have gone through the concept of separation of powers – the Legislature makes laws, the Executive implements those laws, and the Judiciary administers justice by interpreting the law and ensuring it is upheld.
But what happens if the line becomes blurred? It vandalises the separation and shakes the foundation of constitutional democracy.
On 8 December, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Shekhar Yadav, attended an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Uttar Pradesh's Prayagraj. During the event, he delivered a controversial speech where certain derogatory words were used against a minority community.
Although he did not specifically name the Muslim community, he questioned, “How would their children be kind and tolerant when animals were being slaughtered in front of them since childhood?”
Justice Yadav said that not everybody from this community is bad but said “kathmullas… are fatal for the country”.
Supreme Court’s Intervention and Public Trust
Following his controversial remarks, the Supreme Court, on 10 December, took note of news reports over Justice Yadav’s statements at the event and sought details from the Allahabad High Court. An official statement noted, “The details and particulars have been called from the High Court, and the matter is under consideration (sic).”
This intervention by the top court was necessary because it is deeply concerning that a sitting High Court judge, holding a constitutional post, made a series of controversial remarks during a public event.
Such statements not only undermine judicial neutrality but also erode public trust in the judiciary – a cornerstone of any democratic society. Judicial integrity, which forms the bedrock of the judiciary’s credibility, has been seriously compromised in this instance.
Former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Govind Mathur, described Justice Yadav’s statement as a severe blow to constitutional values and secular ideals.
“The statement made by a judge of the Allahabad High Court at a VHP event is condemnable and shameful. India is a constitutional democracy where the ethos and values of the Constitution are paramount. This country is governed not by majoritarianism but by the rule of law. What the judge said from the platform of the VHP is in direct violation of the constitutional oath taken by him. His remarks are a severe blow to our constitutional values and the ideals of secularism. Can we expect such statements even from an ordinary citizen, let alone a judge?”Govind Mathur, Former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court
Judicial Propriety and the Oath of Office
This is not the first time Justice Yadav has courted controversy with his words or decisions. His past judgments have often been criticised for appearing to stray beyond the bounds of judicial propriety.
In September 2021, while denying bail to an individual charged for offences under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act in Uttar Pradesh, Justice Yadav said the government should bring in a bill to include protection of cows within the scope of the fundamental rights of Hindus.
“Keeping in mind the circumstances, the cow must be declared national animal and protection of cows must be a fundamental right of Hindus because we know when the country’s culture and faith are hurt, the country becomes weak," he remarked.
In the said order, he further observed that "Jab gaay ka kalyan hoga, tabhi desh ka kalyan hoga (only if cow is revered, the country will prosper)." He had further observed in the order that no one can claim a fundamental right to eat the meat of the cow.
In October 2021, he passed another order wherein Justice Yadav said the Parliament should pass a law honouring Shri Rama, Shri Krishna, Gita, Ramayana, Maharishi Valmiki, and Maharishi Ved Vyas as they are part of India's culture and tradition. He had added that Hindu religious books like the Gita and the Ramayana must be made part of school courses.
It is pertinent to note that these observations were made in bail orders where the court has only to consider the test of bail, and not to give any observations on the merit of the case or an additional observation.
In a democracy, the judiciary is expected to remain steadfastly apolitical, ensuring that it is viewed as an independent arbiter of justice. Justice Yadav’s remarks blur the critical line of separation between the judicial and political spheres, jeopardising the delicate balance upon which the faith of citizens in the judiciary rests.
Every judge who takes an oath before the Constitution of India is expected to discharge their duties in accordance with the governing principles of the Constitution. The Third Schedule of the Indian Constitution provides the oath for High Court judges, which includes the affirmation to “faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge, and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favor, affection or ill will and uphold the Constitution and the laws.”
In the judgment of Daya Shankar vs High Court of Allahabad (1987), the Supreme Court rightly observed that judicial officers cannot have one standard in court and another outside it. They “must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty, and integrity.”
Similarly, in Tarak Singh vs Jyoti Basu (2005), the court emphasised that integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline – and that while ambition is not inherently wrong, it should never compromise a judge’s divine judicial duty. It is important to reproduce para 23 of the judgment below:
“...Generally speaking, it is a cherished desire to achieve something in life. There is nothing wrong in a judge to have ambition to achieve something, but if the ambition to achieve is likely to cause compromise with his divine judicial duty, better not to pursue it. Because if a judge is too ambitious to achieve something materially, he becomes timid. When he becomes timid, there will be tendency to compromise between his divine duty and his personal interest. There will be conflict in between interest and duty...”
Upholding Judicial Integrity and Independence
Justice Yadav’s controversial statements not only undermine the position of a judge but also compromise judicial integrity and impartiality. Such actions call for strong condemnation from the Bar, as they directly affect the faith of citizens in the judiciary. The judiciary’s role as an independent arbiter demands that judges refrain from making politically charged statements or participating in events that might compromise their impartiality.
Now, the ball is in the apex court’s court. The Supreme Court must decide how to address such a situation where the line of separation is blurred.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has even called for Justice Yadav’s impeachment over his remarks. The process of impeaching a High Court judge in India, though rigorous, is governed by Articles 217(1)(b) and 124(4) of the Constitution.
A motion for removal must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members and submitted to the respective Speaker or Chairman. If admitted, a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and an eminent jurist investigates the allegations. If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion is debated in both Houses of Parliament and requires a two-thirds majority to pass. The President of India then formally issues the removal order. This rigorous process ensures judicial independence, limiting removal to cases of serious misconduct or incapacity.
Judges occupy a position of immense responsibility and influence, and their words and actions must always reflect the principles of justice and impartiality. The judiciary’s integrity is a non-negotiable pillar of our democracy. It is imperative for both the judiciary and the Bar to act decisively in such instances to uphold public confidence and ensure the sanctity of judicial independence.
(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)