Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s Remarks and the Debate on Judicial Accountability

Context

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has come under significant criticism for comments made during an event organized by the legal cell of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

Controversial Remarks and Backlash

Key Comments by Justice Yadav:

• Asserted that the country operates according to the wishes of the majority population.
• Made divisive comparisons regarding values taught to children of different communities, highlighting the practice of animal slaughter.
• Advocated for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), stating that Hindus revere women as goddesses, contrasting this with polygamy and triple talaq practices in another community.

Reactions from Legal and Civil Bodies:

• Supreme Court’s Response: The SC took cognizance of the issue, requesting details from the Allahabad High Court and stating that the matter is under review.
• Criticism from Legal Fraternity:
  • The All India Lawyers Union described the remarks as favoring a "Hindutva Rashtra."
  • Prashant Bhushan’s Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms accused Justice Yadav of breaching judicial ethics.
  • Kapil Sibal, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, called for his impeachment.

Judicial Ethics and Standards of Conduct

Key Standards for Judges:

1. 1985 UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary:

   • Ensures justice is delivered impartially, human rights are protected, and courts act without bias or discrimination.

2. Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997):

   • A code of judicial ethics adopted by the Supreme Court, emphasizing impartiality and actions that reinforce public confidence in the judiciary.

3. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002):

   • Adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council, requiring judges to act with dignity, impartiality, and independence while respecting societal diversity.

Alleged Violations:
Justice Yadav’s remarks and participation in an event affiliated with a political group appear to breach these codes, compromising judicial neutrality and public trust.

Impeachment Process for Judges

Constitutional Provisions:

• A judge can be removed for ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’ as per Articles 124 (for SC judges) and 218 (for HC judges).
• Removal requires a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament, followed by an order from the President.

Procedure for Removal:

1. Judges Inquiry Act, 1968:

   • Details steps for removal, including a special majority vote in Parliament (a majority of total members and two-thirds of those present and voting).

2. In-House Procedure (1999):

   • Complaints can be submitted to the President, CJI, or High Court Chief Justice.
   • Allegations are investigated by a fact-finding committee of senior judges.
   • Recommendations may include voluntary retirement or impeachment if the judge refuses to resign.

Conclusion

Justice Yadav’s remarks have sparked a debate on judicial accountability and the importance of ethical conduct. Upholding impartiality is crucial for maintaining public trust and adherence to constitutional principles. The judiciary's response to this controversy will be critical in preserving its integrity and independence.