Wounding the spirit of the Constitution of India

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, made controversial remarks, which sparked public outrage. His speech has been widely condemned for promoting bigotry and inciting violence, leading to calls for his impeachment. This incident has ignited a wider discussion about judicial accountability, constitutional values, and the role of the judiciary in upholding them.

Justice Yadav’s Remarks and Their Impact

• Speech of Incitement (Incendiary Remarks): Justice Yadav’s speech was described as a direct violation of the constitutional spirit. His words were seen as a call for impunity towards violence, targeting minorities and potentially inciting mob action, exacerbating societal divisions.
• Challenge to the Constitution (Assault on Constitutional Values): The speech undermined the values of justice, equality, and fraternity enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It attacked the secular and democratic principles, threatening to harm the collective spirit of the nation and its citizens, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.
• Public Outcry and Legal Action (Opposition and Legal Response): The controversial remarks led to an impeachment motion in Parliament, a report being sought by the Supreme Court, and citizens writing to the Chief Justice of India.

The Need for Stronger Judicial Accountability

• Failure of the Allahabad High Court (Inaction by Judicial Authorities): The Allahabad High Court failed to take immediate action, offering no condemnation or censure of his remarks.
• The Bigger Issue (Judicial Conduct and Political Influence): This incident exposes the disturbing reality of the judiciary being influenced by political forces. Justice Yadav’s speech blurred the line between judicial speech and political rhetoric, calling into question the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Path Forward for Judicial and Constitutional Integrity

• Need for Public and Judicial Resistance (Rejecting Violent Rhetoric): A stronger public and judicial response is essential to reaffirm the constitutional commitment to a pluralistic, non-denominational India.
• Impeachment Alone is Insufficient (Symbolic Action): While the impeachment motion against Justice Yadav may seem like a step towards justice, it is a symbolic gesture that is unlikely to succeed without a deeper examination of the political dynamics at play and the broader systemic issues in judicial conduct.
• Constitution as a Shared Heritage (Protecting Constitutional Values): The Constitution belongs to all citizens and cannot be treated as the property of a select few, including the judiciary. It is the collective responsibility of every Indian citizen, including judicial figures, to protect the core values of the Constitution and to resist any attempts to distort or undermine them.

Practice Question:

Q. Discuss the implications of a sitting judge's controversial speech that challenges the spirit of the Indian Constitution. What steps should be taken to ensure judicial accountability and uphold the core values of the Constitution?