Thirteen senior advocates urge CJI to direct CBI probe against Justice Shekhar Yadav
New Delhi: Thirteen senior advocates of the Supreme Court have written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, urging him to take suo motu cognizance of a speech delivered by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. The letter demands the CBI lodge an FIR against Justice Yadav, citing his remarks as hate speech that violates constitutional values and judicial impartiality.
The advocates highlighted Justice Yadav’s speech at an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad's legal cell on December 8, 2024, within the Allahabad High Court library premises. They alleged that his comments, including divisive rhetoric and derogatory remarks towards Muslims, contradict the oath of office taken by a judge.
The letter noted Justice Yadav’s statements referring to “hamari Gita” (our Gita) and “aapki Koran” (your Koran), alongside other remarks that allegedly painted one religious community in a negative light. He reportedly criticised Muslim practices such as polygamy and triple talaq, characterising the community as lacking generosity and tolerance.
The advocates emphasised that the speech promoted majoritarian views, undermined the constitutional principles of secularism, and posed a threat to India’s unity and integrity. Justice Yadav also invoked divisive imagery, referencing the Ram Mandir issue and unfounded fears of India becoming “Bangladesh” or “Taliban.”
The letter further pointed out that Justice Yadav’s appointment to the Allahabad High Court was opposed by former CJI Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, citing inadequate work experience and his association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a BJP leader.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), the advocates argued that a criminal case against a sitting judge requires consultation with the CJI. They called for immediate action, stating Justice Yadav’s remarks violated Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution.
The letter also highlighted the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) judgment, describing Justice Yadav’s speech as hate speech promoting enmity between religious groups. It urged the judiciary to uphold its impartiality and ensure accountability for actions undermining public confidence in the justice system.
Justice Yadav reportedly stands by his comments, as per media reports. The advocates concluded by requesting the CJI to ensure that appropriate legal and constitutional measures are taken against the judge.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
