09 June 2025 :The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, people aware of the matter said.
The people cited above confirmed that then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether the judge’s conduct warranted scrutiny in the wake of an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice. However, the move was halted after the Rajya Sabha secretariat’s letter in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President.
This letter effectively stalled the judiciary’s plan to initiate an in-house inquiry – an internal mechanism laid down through judicial precedents to examine complaints of misconduct against sitting judges of the superior judiciary, against Justice Yadav, whose comments at the VHP’s December 8, 2024, event in Prayagraj drew widespread condemnation for violating the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality.
HT reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately.
In February, Rajya Sabha chairman and vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter
“The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,” he said in Parliament on February 13.
Justice Yadav, addressing a gathering organised by the legal cell of the VHP within the Allahabad High Court Bar Association premises, made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes.
In his speech, he reportedly asserted that “India should function according to the wishes of the majority,” claimed “only a Hindu can make this country a ‘Vishwa Guru’,” and linked practices such as triple talaq and halala to societal backwardness, calling for their abolition under the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using derogatory communal slurs.His remarks framed the UCC as a Hindu-Muslim binary, stating that while Hindu customs had evolved to address historical wrongs, Muslims had resisted reform.
The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav’s impeachment for “grave violation of judicial ethics.” The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and his immediate suspension, citing a clear breach of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997.
Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court swiftly sought a report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes.
While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns “consistent with constitutional values.” Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026.
People cited above said that CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But by then, an unexpected development complicated matters.
In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav’s conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration.
“The court’s secretary general brought the letter to the notice of the then CJI, who was clear that an in-house inquiry, being a non-statutory and internal mechanism, should not run parallel to a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,” a person familiar with the matter told HT. “The Rajya Sabha’s categorical assertion that it was seized of the matter prompted the judiciary to defer to the parliamentary process,” this person added.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates that a motion seeking removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” must be admitted by the presiding officer of the House concerned. To be sure, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide on the admissibility of the motion and whether to constitute a formal inquiry committee.
“The idea was not to create constitutional friction or undermine parliamentary privilege…That’s the sole reason why no in-house probe was set up despite the initial steps,” the person cited above added.
Another person aware of the deliberations within the collegium said that all members were informed of the decision to halt the in-house inquiry after the receipt of the Rajya Sabha’s letter. “There was a kind of consensus that the matter, being under legislative scrutiny, should not be clouded by a simultaneous judicial process,” the person said.
Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to push for clarity on the status of the impeachment motion. Speaking to HT on condition of anonymity, a senior MP said last month that his party planned to raise the matter during the monsoon session. “During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was assessing the veracity of the signatures on the notice. We would like to know the status of that notice too…the notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up,” the lawmaker said.
In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav reportedly maintained in January that he has done no wrong. He described his speech as an articulation of issues affecting society and claimed that his references were misconstrued. On the criticism of his previous judicial orders related to cow protection, he is said to have responded that these reflected India’s cultural ethos and legal recognition of cow protection, not any form of judicial bias.
Notably, Justice Yadav did not tender an apology in his correspondence, reinforcing his stance that his speech was neither communal nor violative of judicial conduct. He rather asserted that judges, who often face unfair attacks, deserve protection and support from senior members of the judiciary.
Summary:
The Supreme Court ended its inquiry into Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav following a Rajya Sabha notice, with Parliament now handling the judge’s removal process.