The All India Lawyers Union (AILU) has called for disciplinary action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court following his controversial remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. The Yadav’s speech has drawn widespread criticism for allegedly violating the constitutional values of secularism and judicial impartiality.
During the VHP event, Justice Yadav advocated for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), stating that India should align with the majority community’s aspirations. He criticized practices such as polygamy, triple talaq, and Halala while praising the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). These remarks have been perceived as divisive, sparking allegations of bias and undermining the independence of the judiciary.
AILU’s Allegations
The All India Lawyers Union (AILU) has leveled serious allegations against Justice Yadav for his speech
delivered at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. According to AILU, the speech violated judicial propriety and impartiality, as it seemingly endorsed ideologies that could undermine the secular fabric of the judiciary.
AILU claims that the content of the speech was inconsistent with the expectations of neutrality and restraint that are vital to the judiciary’s credibility. The union has expressed concerns about the potential impact of Justice Yadav’s comments on the public’s trust in the legal system, especially on cases requiring impartial adjudication.
Key Points in AILU’s Allegations:
- Breach of Judicial Neutrality: AILU asserts that Justice Yadav’s participation in the VHP event and his remarks suggest bias, which is unbecoming of a judicial officer.
- Potential Erosion of Public Trust: The union warns that such actions by a member of the judiciary can weaken public confidence in an impartial legal system.
- Demand for Action: AILU has called for immediate action from higher judicial authorities to investigate the matter and ensure accountability.
AILU emphasizes that the judiciary must remain insulated from political and ideological influences to uphold the Constitution and maintain the rule of law.
Political Reactions
The allegations against Justice Yadav’s speech at the VHP event have sparked widespread political reactions, with leaders from various parties expressing contrasting views on the matter.
Opposition Parties:
- Condemnation of the Speech: Opposition leaders, particularly from the Congress and other secular political fronts, criticized the speech, claiming it undermines the judiciary’s independence and neutrality.
- A senior Congress leader stated, “The judiciary is the last bastion of democracy, and any indication of bias erodes public trust. Such actions must be addressed with urgency.”
- Demand for an Inquiry: Several opposition leaders have called for a comprehensive investigation to ascertain the extent of any judicial impropriety.
Ruling Party:
- Defense of Justice Yadav: Leaders from the BJP and its allies defended Justice Yadav, emphasizing his right to freedom of speech and association.
- A BJP spokesperson remarked, “Attending an event does not mean bias. Justice Yadav has a long history of impartiality, and this controversy is being politicized unnecessarily.”
- Criticism of AILU: The ruling party criticized the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) for making “baseless allegations” and accused them of furthering a political agenda.
Civil Society and Legal Experts:
- Mixed Reactions: While some legal experts argued that judges must avoid any appearance of partisanship, others believe the speech should be evaluated in its full context before drawing conclusions.
- Call for Transparency: Activists and legal scholars have urged the judiciary to take steps to address the concerns raised, either through an internal inquiry or a public clarification.
The incident has reignited debates about judicial propriety, the role of public officials in political or ideological events, and the need for clear guidelines to safeguard judicial neutrality.
Critique of the Collegium System
The collegium system, responsible for appointing judges to the higher judiciary in India, has faced significant criticism over the years. While it was established to ensure judicial independence, it has drawn concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and inclusivity.
1. Lack of Transparency
- Opaque Decision-Making: The process of appointing judges under the collegium system is criticized for being secretive. Decisions are often made without public disclosure of the criteria or reasons for selecting or rejecting candidates.
- No Public Accountability: The absence of records or explanations for decisions has led to skepticism about favoritism and potential biases.
2. No Formal Guidelines
- Subjective Criteria: The collegium operates without codified guidelines or structured evaluation criteria, leaving decisions to the discretion of a few senior judges.
- Inconsistency: The lack of formalized procedures often results in perceived inconsistencies in the appointment process.
3. Concentration of Power
- Self-Perpetuating System: Critics argue that the collegium system centralizes power in the hands of a few judges, leading to allegations of nepotism or exclusion of meritorious candidates.
- No Checks and Balances: With no external oversight, the system lacks mechanisms to prevent abuse or ensure balanced representation.
4. Exclusion of External Input
- Limited Stakeholder Involvement: Unlike judicial appointment systems in other democracies, the collegium excludes input from the executive, legislature, or civil society, potentially resulting in a lack of diversity in the judiciary.
- Missed Perspectives: Exclusion of external stakeholders may hinder the incorporation of broader societal and democratic values.
5. Impact on Judicial Independence
- Perceived Bias: While intended to preserve judicial independence, the collegium system is often seen as insulating the judiciary from constructive criticism.
- Delayed Appointments: Prolonged decision-making has led to delays in appointments, affecting the functioning of courts and increasing the burden on the judiciary.
Proposals for Reform
- National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): The NJAC was introduced to address these concerns but was struck down by the Supreme Court, which upheld the collegium system. This decision has fueled the ongoing debate about the need for reforms.
- Increased Transparency: Advocates suggest introducing greater transparency, public accountability, and codified guidelines to restore trust in the system.
- Stakeholder Participation: Reformists propose a balanced mechanism that involves the judiciary, executive, and independent bodies to ensure fairness and diversity.
The critique of the collegium system underscores the need for a more inclusive, transparent, and accountable mechanism to uphold the credibility and efficiency of India’s judiciary while safeguarding its independence.
A Call to Uphold Secular Values
The AILU urged:
- Immediate action against Justice Yadav.
- Preservation of the judiciary’s independence and impartiality.
- Reinforcement of the Constitution’s secular fabric.
Democracy, the AILU asserted, is not about majoritarianism but about protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring justice for all.
Conclusion
The remarks by Justice Yadav have sparked a critical debate on judicial neutrality and accountability. Strong measures are necessary to uphold constitutional values and restore public confidence in the judiciary.
For more on judiciary reform and constitutional debates, read our detailed guide on Judicial Independence in India and check out this external resource on Uniform Civil Code for additional insights.
By Shehnaz Shaikh
Stay updated on Vistatimes.com.