ALLAHABAD High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, in the line of fire for his controversial comments against Muslims and for supporting the Uniform Civil Code, would not have become a judge had the Supreme Court Collegium heeded the words of one of its own when his elevation to the Bench was under consideration.
What made his eventual elevation more significant was the fact that the person raising the red flag was a judge of the Supreme Court destined to become the Chief Justice of India later.
According to Supreme Court documents perused by The Leaflet, in a 21-page analysis of all the lawyer-candidates recommended for elevation as judges of the Allahabad High Court by the High Court Collegium headed by then Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale on February 14, 2018, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, while he was still a puisne judge of the country’s top court, had strongly opposed the proposal to elevate advocate Yadav to the Bench.
As a judge of the Supreme Court of India, the names were sent to Justice Chandrachud, who had served as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and who later became Chief Justice of India (CJI), for his inputs and comments.
However, the Supreme Court Collegium comprising then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice A.K. Sikri and S.A. Bobde, which met on February 12, 2019, decided to ignore the red flag and recommend Yadav’s name along with nine other deferred names for appointment, with the government also playing ball and clearing the appointment.
He was appointed an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on December 12, 2019, and was made a permanent judge on March 26, 2021. He is due to retire on April 15, 2026.
Justice Chandrachud, as he was then, was requested by the then CJI Dipak Misra to provide his assessment of the 33 lawyers recommended by the High Court Collegium for appointment as High Court judges.
In his letter addressed to the CJI on August 13, 2018, Justice Chandrachud pointed to Yadav’s inadequate work experience, his links with the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and, most importantly, his closeness to a (then) BJP Rajya Sabha member of Parliament (MP), who is currently a Union minister.
“He is not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud summed up at the end of his note about Yadav.
“He is not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud summed up at the end of his note about Yadav.
Here is what Justice Chandrachud wrote: “The candidate is an assistant government advocate. His work experience is inadequate though he is 54 years of age. He is an average lawyer. He is an active member of the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh. Presently additional CSC. He is close to (name held back by The Leaflet), who is a BJP RS [Rajya Sabha] member.
“He is also close to Dr L.S. Ojha, who is a member of the BJP media cell. It is reported that the candidate has been recommended by Shri Ashok Mehta, former Additional Solicitor General at Allahabad High Court because of his political affiliations. He is not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court.”
The three-judge Supreme Court Collegium comprising then CJI Dipak Misra, CJI-designate Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Madan B. Lokur, which met on September 25, 2018, decided to defer its decision with regard to the names of 16 lawyers, including Yadav, for appointment as judges.
Incidentally, of the 33 names recommended by the Allahabad High Court Collegium, Justice Chandrachud supported the candidature of only six lawyers.
He opined that 22 lawyer-candidates were “not suitable for appointment as judges of the Allahabad High Court”, three names required “further scrutiny” while the names of two candidates “should be deferred”.
However, the Supreme Court Collegium decided to recommend 17 names out of the total 33, holding the remaining back for reconsideration at a later stage.
On December 8, speaking at an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)’s legal cell on the premises of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav openly targeted Muslims and supported the Uniform Civil Code.
After a massive uproar over his controversial remarks, as many as 55 Rajya Sabha MPs had written to the Vice President, who is also the chairman of the Upper House of Parliament, to initiate steps to impeach the judge.
The chairman is yet to take a decision on the request to impeach the judge for making a “hate speech” and “incitement to communal disharmony”. The opposition MPs have also accused the judge of having "targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them” through his speech at the VHP event.
The chairman of the Rajya Sabha is yet to take a decision on the request to impeach the judge for making a “hate speech” and “incitement to communal disharmony”.
Meanwhile, upset with the judge’s public utterances, the Supreme Court also decided to weigh in, summoning the judge on December 17 for an interaction in order to grant an opportunity to him to explain his position. Before meeting the judge, the Supreme Court also sought a report about the incident from the Allahabad High Court.
According to multiple reports, unconvinced with the judge’s explanation, the Supreme Court Collegium reportedly told him to be careful with his public utterances.
The CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, also reportedly briefed the full court about the Supreme Court Collegium’s interaction with Justice Yadav. However, the matter is still not settled and the Supreme Court is adopting a wait-and-watch approach.