Roar against High Court Judge

 

The leader of Communist Party of India and former Member of Parliament, Brinda Karat, was the first to raise a cry on the direct and veiled attack against the Indian Muslims by Justice Shikar Kumar Yadav a sitting High Court Judge of Allahabad at an event held by Vishwa Hindu Parishad. In a letter addressed to Chief Justices of India, Brinda Karat termed his speech as an assault on the constitution with hate content against a minority community. He was an affront to the collective conscience of a secular and democratic country. This statement of the sitting justices of the Allahabad High Court was also an assault on the processes of justice. Its damaging part was that no litigant could hope for justice in a court in which a member held such a biased, prejudiced, publicly expressed opinion against a minority community and in favour of the majoritarian approach. Brinda Karat added in the letter that there can and should be no place for such persons in the court of justice.NGO Citizen for Judicial Accountability and Reforms also wrote to the Chief Justice of India, seeking a constitution of an in-house enquiry to initiate appropriate action against Justice Yadav for judicial impropriety, breaching his solemn oath as a judge, and violating the code of conduct for judges. Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, National Conference MP from Srinagar, initiated the process for impeachment motion as the judge’s behaviour violates constitutional norms including the Supreme Court’s Restatement of values of judicial life. Justice speech was communally charged and has violated sections of the laws. Syed Ruhullah Mehdi has already spoken to MPs across the party line to get the signatures of a hundred members to move the motion in the house. Asaduddin Owaisi, MP, AIMIM has declared that he has signed a notice seeking removal proceedings against ShekharYadav, Judge of Allahabad High Court. The Catholic Bishops Conference of India too has urged individual Members of Parliament regardless of political affiliation, to rise to the occasion and take steps to actively support the constitutional action against the concerned judge so that no one repeats such incidents.  A question arises, as to why there has been such a huge outburst against the utterance made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court judge against a particular community. Nearly forty-five members of the Parliament have signed the letter to initiate impeachment against the sitting judge. Is it because of the vote bank politics that every political group has jumped on the wagon? It is an age-old belief in certain political parties that the Indian Muslim caste there votes monolithically so these political parties practice Muslim appeasement measures to woo them. For Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMIM leader and a Parliament Member, the statement of Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge on targeting Indian Muslims is a capitalizing topic to draw the political mileage out of it. The newly elected Parliament Member from Srinagar Syed Ruhullah Mehdi took the  opportunity to dabble in Indian Muslim politics in the parliament by advocating for the impeachment of the sitting High Court Judge of Allahabad, for his anti-Muslim statement. However, the humanitarian issue of the rehabilitation of Kashmir Hindu minorities and terrorist killings in the Jammu region was not raised by Syed Ruhullah, which deserved urgent attention for durable resolution. The Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from the valley, a long unsettled for the last three decades for which the elected National Conference member has no temerity to raise the issue, despite being a humanitarian cause. Probably the reason was that the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus issue would not help in vote bank politics. Before taking over as a judge in 2019, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav was skillfully involved in his legal profession in the U.P.

State. With his multifaceted previous experience supplemented by his knowledge as the High Court judge, he might have gained an understanding in his in-depth study of the judiciary on the social drawbacks in Indian society that resulted in social disharmony within the communities. With this in mind, the outpouring of views of the sitting judge was like that of a counsellor bringing about qualitative change to address the community level for reformation.  As a sitting Judge, he cannot be given the privilege of enjoying freedom of expression, because of the nature of his job where he was to preserve judicial independence and equanimity.  Before, reachingany conclusion let there be an unbiased analysis of the statement given by the sitting High Court judge that was labelled as hate speech. Justices Shekhar Kumar Yadav had backed the Uniform Civil Code and explained that its implementation was in no way influencing Sheriyat or their practice of Islam. It seems that the justices had tried to clear the doubts that inhibited the minds of Muslims in the country.

 

The Justices further clarify that the drawbacks, shortcomings, and ills like untouchability, Sati, Jayhar, and  female foeticide in the society were to be removed irrespective of Muslim Personal Law, Hindu law, the Gita or the Ouran. It is evident enough that Justice Yadav had not delivered any hate speech against any particular community. On the contrary, he attempted to clear the misgivings fomented by certain sections of religious groups within the community. If the political leadership within the country has no spine to take up social and religious issues of the particular community affront, fearing the chances of losing the votes of the one community, the phenomenon of continued appeasement policy went on unabated and goes unchallenged at the cost of the majority community. Justice Yadav further quoted instances of how men of a particular community were keeping four wives without the consent of the first wife. How can one justify such social evils in a progressive and democratic Indian society at the cost of uniform justice for all genders in the society? The slogan Sab Ka Sath Sab KaVikas hurled by the Modi Government as a policy matter remained unaccomplished.  Why hue and cry was raised by leftists and certain secularist Members of Parliaments over the statement of Justice Yadav who rightly enumerated the teachings of nonviolence and the conception of God imparted by Hindu families to their children as perthe Vedas and other Hindu scriptures? Whereas, the other community felt pride in slaughtering animals in the presence of their children purposely to insulate them from becoming tolerant and generous. So the contradiction and contrary stand adopted so far were to be relooked for the progress of Indian society and of the country. Justice Yadav did not vacillate while addressing the Hindu majority character of India and deemed it relevant to give thrust to the majority approach. It was always that the final say in determining the outcome of the decision lies with the majority. Whether it was a petition in the court of justices or parliament, state assemblies of a committee or any tribunal the voting cast by the majority matters. But that does not mean that the voice of the minority should be overlooked or sidelined. Since Hindus constitute the majority in India, their will prevail in running the country was openly acknowledged by Justice Yadav in his address to the legal cell of Vishva Hindu Parishad.  The bewildering irony in India is the population ratio of communities at the state and national levels. The Muslims form the majority in the state of Jammu and Kashmir but when counted withthe national population they constitute a minority and are entitled to minority benefits. Whereas, the Hindu minority of the state is denied minority dolls due to their being counted among the Hindu majority of the country. In a similar population structure, Christians are in the majority in the North East. But when clubbed with the rest of the Indian population they fall in the bracket of minority and harness themselves with all the advantages of minority as envisaged by the Indian government. With this permutation and combination, the minority communities in the country are well taken care of and their constitutional interests are protected and guarded.

To remove a sitting judge, the signatures of a minimum of a hundred members of Parliament or fifty members of the Raja Sabha are required to trigger the impeachment process. On getting a motion admitted a committee is constituted to investigate the allegations and to frame the charges. The sitting judge against whom the charges are framed has the right to defend himself before the committee. Being a complicated process, it needs the role of Parliament for debate and vote on impeachment. Why such outcry by the politicians over the public statement of the sitting judge against a particular community has caused such convulsion when the same political class was silent over the many other burning issues that haunt the social and religious issues between the communities? The recent targeting and vandalisation of Hindu temples and properties in Bangladesh or the denial of education rights to women in Afghanistan have not aroused any empathy among these Parliamentarians and Human rights activists for the particular victims in the subcontinents. Should this lead to the conclusion that Indian political elites are inherently hypocrites?

DISCLAIMER: 

The views expressed in the Article above are  SURINDER KOUL  views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy:  SURINDER KOUL  and  Spade A Spade- JANUARY  2025