Justice Yadav's remarks: majoritarianism and its impact on judicial neutrality | LME EP 53

A sitting judge of the Allahabad HC recently made a communal speech at a VHP event, declaring that the country would function as per the wishes of the majority. 

In his 34-minute speech he endorsed extremist majoritarian views. Justice Shekhar Yadav also contributed to the othering of the muslim community

The judiciary is often seen as the final safeguard for upholding constitutional values.

So, why are Justice Yadav’s remarks so significant in today’s political and social climate? What is the problem with judges associating with organisations like the VHP and RSS ? And the larger question of the right-wing’s hold on the judiciary 

Let’s break it down.

Every single week, I ask you to support us by becoming a TNM and NL subscriber. Many of you do sign up. 

Here’s the thing. If we were taking ads from any other political party, do you think we could have posed the tough questions we do? This is why we ask for our audience to support us so we are only accountable to you. 

This December, you can gift a subscription to anybody either for christmas or new year and make sure you start 2025 by proudly supporting journalism that’s independent, fearless and speaking only for you.

Sitting Allahabad HC judge, Justice Shekar Kumar Yadav spoke at an event organised by the legal cell of  VHP and gave a lecture on the Uniform Civil Code. In his speech, he claimed the country will function according to the wishes of the majority. 

Justice Yadav also said his introduction was incomplete without mentioning that he hails from the land where the Ganges flows, and highlighted the cultural significance of Gaay (cow), Ganga (the river), and Geeta (the sacred text). 

In a deeply controversial statement, he asserted that children should be taught to identify as Hindus first. He also used a word to describe the Muslim community that is perceived as a slur and made discriminatory comments against Muslim children.

Let' s start with the fact that a sitting HC judge attended a VHP event. VHP is an organisation often linked to divisive and exclusionary ideologies. And Justice Yadav speaking at VHP’s event violates the judicial responsibility to remain impartial and uphold constitutional values. Because judicial ethics demand strict neutrality.

His endorsement of majoritarianism directly contradicts India’s Constitution, which was designed to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of religion or community. 

In his judgments too, Justice Shekhar Yadav has made his politics clear. 

In September 2021, he denied bail to a man accused of slaughtering a cow, stating that cows should be declared the national animal and that protecting cows should be a fundamental right of Hindus. 

Later, in October the same year, he suggested that the Indian Parliament pass laws to respect Hindu deities and make texts like the Gita and Ramayana part of the school curriculum. 

These remarks are not accidental misstatements; they reflect a carefully crafted worldview.

And JusticeYadav is not the only judge of Indian courts to have made communal statements.

A few months ago, Karnataka High Court Justice Vedavyasachar referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" during a hearing. 

In 2019, at the Tamil Brahmin Global Meet held in Kochi, Justice Chitambaresh called on the Brahmin community to oppose caste-based reservations 

Justice SR Sen, from the Meghalaya High Court has said that India should have been declared a Hindu nation at the time of partition. 

When sitting judges make such remarks, they do not merely express a personal political preference, but actively erode public trust in the judicial system's ability to deliver unbiased justice. 

Similarly, when Justice Chitta Ranjan Das of the Calcutta High Court in his farewell speech openly declared his long-standing association with the RSS, it raised significant questions about the perception of neutrality within the judiciary.

When lawyer L Victoria Gowri was appointed as an additional judge of the Madras High Court, there were questions on her impartiality raised. 

And 21 Madras High Court lawyers protested her appointment, citing instances of alleged communal speech like when she referred to Islam as “green terror” and Christianity as “white fear”. She had been a party secretary in the BJP. 

Since the 1990s, India has used the Collegium system for judicial appointments, where judges appoint other judges. Though this system also has its own problems, its supposed to assume judicial neutrality.

Before that, during Indira Gandhi’s time, the political ideologies of judges was a major factor in their appointments. In his book Supreme Whispers, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud highlights 

One such example. Justice M. N. Chandurkar’s elevation to the Supreme Court was blocked despite Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud recommended him in 1982 and 1985. 

Alleged links with the RSS, including attending Golwalkar's funeral and praising him, raised concerns in Gandhi’s government. 

But over the years, magistrates and judges openly linked to right wing organizations have taken charge in many places of the country. 

A Caravan investigative piece from October showed the RSS’s legal front’s Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) increasing hold over the judicial system

ABAP  reportedly has over 15,000 members and  reflects its founder, Dattopant Thengadi’s vision of a Hindu-centric state. Thengadi believed that secular governance should not interfere with traditional systems like caste, religious practices, with this view ABAP has also pushed for a constitutional and legal framework rooted in Hindu nationalism.

And today, ABAP members hold key leadership positions in bar associations, the judiciary, and even in Parliament. 

At least nine of the 33 sitting Supreme Court judges have attended ABAP events. Prominent figures like former Supreme Court judge Adarsh Kumar Goel and Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav have been linked to ABAP

While the association presents itself as apolitical, its actions often reveal its ideological focus. One stark example is its involvement during the 2008 Kandhamal violence in Odisha, where Hindutva extremists targeted Christians, destroying churches and homes and displacing over 60,000 people. Almost 100 people were killed in the attacks. 

ABAP lawyers quickly mobilized, flooding courts to defend the accused and framing the violence as a reaction to Christian missionary activity. 

Over time, ABAP has focused on mentoring  young lawyers, especially through initiatives like the Nationalist Lawyer’s Forum in Kolkata. Many of these lawyers have gone on to influential positions including as judges in the Calcutta High Court. The Caravan piece says that though rarely publicized, these affiliations are well understood within legal circles.

Political loyalty in the judiciary flies in the face of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which emphasize on impartiality and independence for judges. 

It was framed in 2002 under the leadership of the Chief Justice of India, and is centered around six key values including independence, impartiality, and integrity. These principles guide judges in their professional and personal conduct.

And the hope is that by adhering to these values, judges reinforce public confidence in the legal system.