The speech given by Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court at the World Hindu Council event has become a point of controversy for the judge. On December 8, at a World Hindu Council event in Prayagraj, Justice Yadav supported the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). In a viral video, he expressed his support for the UCC and said that laws should align with the priorities of the majority community. He stated, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan. The country will function according to the majority community. This is the law. You can’t even say that a High Court judge is saying this. The law, my friend, is driven by the majority.” He further explained that in a family or society, where the majority is, their opinions are accepted. The political uproar over the judge’s statement is understandable, but if a higher court were to take any action associating this statement with Hindus, it would be incomprehensible.
Justice Yadav was not wrong in saying that laws should be aligned with the priorities of the majority community. If the judge is wrong, then how can our democracy be justified? It is democracy itself that ensures governments are formed by winning the votes of the majority, including voters from all communities and religions. Even when a multi-member bench of the court delivers a judgment on a case, it reflects this principle. A clear example of this can be seen in the 2019 Supreme Court verdict on the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, where a five-judge bench ruled by a majority. This too can be considered the majority’s decision.
However, the Supreme Court Collegium has summoned Justice Shekhar Yadav. When a judge faces allegations over a controversial issue, the Collegium, under the Chief Justice’s leadership, gives them the opportunity to present their side. Sources from the Supreme Court mentioned that Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav might be given the chance to defend himself against charges of crossing judicial boundaries.
Meanwhile, Justice Yadav has found support from Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who has firmly stated that the judge did not say anything wrong. However, Yogi also made political calculations while expressing his viewpoint. Using this, Yogi once again targeted Congress and the opposition on the issue of Hinduism, i.e., the majority community. He criticized the opposition’s stance towards Hindu unity, Justice Yadav, and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar. CM Yogi supported the judge’s statement, asserting that those who advocate for the strengthening of the majority community are now being threatened. He claimed that the opposition is so uncomfortable with the preservation of India’s heritage that they even bring impeachment motions. Yogi also emphasized that those who speak the truth are being silenced and that the opposition wants to suppress the voices of people like the judges who delivered the Ram Mandir verdict.
Yogi was not wrong in saying that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) should be implemented in the country. In the world, the system runs according to the wishes of the majority. India aims to eliminate the divide between minorities and majorities, so that the same laws apply to everyone. However, this is a point the opposition does not like. They want to control the country’s system through force and silence the truth by strangling the Constitution.
The Chief Minister also used Justice Yadav’s statement to justify his point, stating that the temple in Sambhal, which had been closed 46 years ago during Congress rule, has now reopened. He questioned why those responsible for the massacre in Sambhal have never been punished. He pointed out that innocent people had been killed in Sambhal and asked what their crime was. He further stated that anyone who speaks the truth is threatened, and efforts are being made to silence their voices.
Justice Shekhar Yadav has been heavily criticized by the “Tukde-Tukde Gang,” who are propagating the idea of equating the voice of the majority with the voice of Hindus. Lawyer and Convenor of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, Prashant Bhushan, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjeev Khanna, requesting an in-house inquiry into the conduct of Justice Yadav. He claimed that the judge violated the principles of judicial ethics, impartiality, and secularism. On the other hand, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat also wrote a letter to the CJI on December 8, calling Justice Yadav’s speech a violation of his oath and urging the Supreme Court to take action. The Bar Association of India condemned the judge’s statement, passing a resolution calling for him to retract his statement and apologize. Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member of the Samajwadi Party, Kapil Sibal, also expressed outrage over Justice Yadav’s statement.
Ultimately, the term “majority” cannot be limited to just Hindus, nor can “minority” be restricted to only Muslims. The concept of the majority is broader. If the majority of the population demands better education, healthcare, security, lower inflation, less corruption, housing, and food for all, this cannot be seen as just a Hindu demand; it is the voice of the entire majority population of the country.
