The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday rejected a public interest litigation challenging the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav for his anti-Muslim remarks in December, Bar and Bench reported.

Speaking at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event on December 8, Yadav said that India would be run as per the wishes of its Hindu majority. He also uttered a communal slur used for Muslims who have been circumcised and described the community as “harmful to the country”.

“They are the kind of people who do not want the country to progress and we need to be cautious of them,” Yadav, a sitting High Court judge, said. He added that India would soon adopt a Uniform Civil Code – a common set of laws governing marriage, divorce, succession and adoption for all citizens.

The remarks by Yadav had led to demands for his impeachment, with some critics calling for his judicial work to be suspended.

On December 13, 55 Opposition MPs filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha calling for his impeachment. The 21-page motion, initiated by Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, said that the judge’s speech “prima facie [showed] evidence [that he] has targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against minorities”.

Opposition leaders who signed the motion included Congress MPs Chidambaram and Digvijaya Singh, Aam Aadmi Party’s Raghav Chadha, Trinamool Congress legislators Sagarika Ghose and Saket Gokhale, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Manoj Jha and Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s John Brittas.

Advocate Asok Pande had filed the public interest litigation in the High Court seeking to prevent the chairman of the Rajya Sabha from acting on the motion, arguing that Yadav had made the comments in his capacity as a Hindu.

The petitioner further argued that the use of the communal slur does not qualify as hate speech as Yadav’s remarks could be seen as a criticism of specific individuals within the Muslim community.

The Allahabad High Court, however, held that the plea was not maintainable.

The process to impeach a High Court judge is governed by the Constitution and the 1968 Judges Inquiry Act.

A motion for removal must be submitted in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. The speaker or the chairperson of the House decides whether to admit the motion.

If admitted, the matter is referred to a judicial committee for investigation. The committee has three members: a Supreme Court judge, a High Court chief justice and an eminent jurist. Based on the committee’s findings, Parliament debates and votes on the motion. The motion must secure a two-thirds majority in both Houses. Upon approval, Parliament advises the president to remove the judge from office.

Besides the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha, the Supreme Court has also taken cognisance of Yadav’s comments and sought a report from the High Court about the matter.

Scroll looked at several of his orders over the last three-and-a-half years and found that Yadav has a pattern of referring to Hindutva talking points.

In his judgements, Yadav has suggested that the state should honour the cow as well as Hindu gods, referred to conspiracy theories about religious conversions and accused people of making false complaints under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act.

Also read: