Law & disorder: The judge who crossed the line

Sandeep Raj

Bengaluru

The judiciary is meant to be the last bastion of impartiality in a democracy, but what happens when a judge trades the scales of justice for the rhetoric of bias? In a shocking breach of constitutional principles, Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav openly aligned himself with majoritarian ideology at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, using inflammatory language against India’s largest minority and pledging support for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a tool of dominance. His remarks were not just controversial they were a direct assault on the judiciary’s credibility and the secular fabric of the nation.

At the convention, Mr. Yadav painted a divisive picture, lauding the majority community for fostering non-violence through their traditions while vilifying the minority with derogatory epithets and sweeping generalizations. Worse, he proclaimed that India would run according to the wishes of the majority, comparing the inevitability of the UCC’s implementation to the construction of the Ram Mandir. Such statements, coming from a sitting judge, shatter the constitutional ideal of judicial neutrality and reveal a troubling alignment with majoritarian chauvinism. The consequences of this breach are profound. When judges allow personal biases to dictate their conduct, they undermine the judiciary’s position as an impartial arbiter. Public faith in the judiciary a cornerstone of democracy crumbles, leaving marginalised communities to fear coercive policies under the guise of reform. The UCC, which should be debated as an inclusive framework for equality, risks becoming a weapon of exclusion in the hands of those who view it as a majoritarian mandate.

Unsurprisingly, the backlash has been swift. Lawyers, lawmakers, and civil rights groups have called for an in-house judicial inquiry, the suspension of Mr. Yadav’s duties, and even his impeachment. The Supreme Court, which has sought a report on his remarks from the Allahabad High Court, must respond decisively to safeguard the institution’s credibility. Anything less would embolden further breaches of judicial integrity. This controversy is emblematic of a deeper malaise. Recent government policies, such as lifting the ban on Rashtriya Swayam sevak Sangh (RSS) activities for government servants while maintaining restrictions on the Jamaate- Islami, have blurred the lines between institutional independence and ideological allegiance.

These actions not only stoke perceptions of partiality but also encourage individuals like Mr. Yadav to publicly espouse divisive views. The judiciary’s role in a democracy extends beyond interpreting the law it symbolizes hope for justice in a pluralistic society. A judge’s duty is to uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it to fit personal or political ideologies. By pledging allegiance to a communal agenda, Mr. Yadav has shaken the foundations of this trust. India stands at a critical juncture. The judiciary must act firmly to ensure that the principles of justice and equality remain unshaken. The response to this incident will determine whether the judiciary reaffirms its role as an impartial guardian of the Constitution or allows bias to corrode its core.

(The views expressed here are of the author's own, News Trail editorial is not held responsible for it)