Will the Supreme Court take strict action against Justice Chandrasekhar Yadav?

 

Will the Supreme Court take strict action against Justice Chandrasekhar Yadav?

    An analytical article by the renowned journalist Akhtar Azim came across my eyes, and I thought I should read it. As I read the article, it became clear to me that today’s government is blind in the power of tyranny and despotism. Akhtar Azim writes that during his three decades of service in the Press Information Bureau of the central government and various departments of the Delhi government, the experiences gained reflected the Ganga-Jamuni civilization of India. In every office, brotherhood, unity, and respect for each other's beliefs and traditions were prominent. This attitude reflected the secular temperament of the Congress rulers of that time. From officers to the lowest employees, everyone not only respected their colleagues' religious and social beliefs but also maintained decorum and respect during discussions and debates.

    The account continues that this incident occurred when I was transferred to the Press Information Bureau in Jalandhar. In the Urdu unit in Delhi, where a significant number of Muslim colleagues were present, I was the only Muslim when I reached Jalandhar. When the first Friday came, I was deeply worried that I might not be able to offer the Friday prayers, and this thought disturbed me immensely. Meanwhile, at eleven o'clock, my senior officer called me. Upon entering his office and greeting him politely, he smiled with joy and said, "Akhtar Sahib," hearing this word made my heart happy. It was as if after years, a voice filled with sweetness echoed in my ears. I had spent the first twenty-five years of my life in this Ganga-Jamuni civilization, where there was an atmosphere of respect and tolerance. Nowadays, all one hears from morning till evening are just "Namaskar" and "Good morning." Then he gestured for me to sit and said with a smile, "Akhtar, today is Friday, and I know that even the most distant of Muslims does not miss Friday prayers. There are beautiful mosques in Jalandhar, but unfortunately, they are deserted. The Muslim population here is almost negligible. However, in the inner city, there is an ancient shrine of Hazrat Imam Nasiruddin, where a few Muslims live, and regular five-time prayers are held. But getting there won't be easy." Hearing these words from him gave me a strange sense of peace. You must understand that this conversation was not only proof of his broad-mindedness but also a reminder of the beauty of Indian society, which has now become somewhat faded.

    In light of the Daily Aag, dated December 19, 2024, I am writing this: The esteemed Akhtar Sahib further writes: After saying this, my senior officer immediately called the motorcycle rider, who used to deliver news to the Press Information Bureau offices, and ordered, "From today, take Akhtar Sahib to the shrine of Imam Nasiruddin every Friday so that he can offer the Friday prayers, and there should be no negligence in this matter." Hearing this, I was filled with a mixture of surprise and joy. In the past, I had memories of humanist and Muslim-friendly officers in the Delhi office of the Press Information Bureau, such as the late Jagannath, Azad, G.D. Chandan, Hardyal Shad, Shamshir Singh Nirala, and the lover of Ghalib, H.S. Saraswati. However, here in Jalandhar, the kindness of a non-Muslim officer, based on humanism and religious tolerance, was a new and heartwarming example for me. When I tried to thank him, he smiled and said, "There is no need for thanks, Akhtar Sahib! I am a Hindu, and my religion has taught me to respect every religion and belief. It is our duty to respect your religious obligations. If you wish, you can also offer Zuhr and Asr prayers at the office." The officer’s attitude had a profound impact on my heart. Going to the shrine for Friday prayers by government motorcycle became a routine. Furthermore, I began regularly offering Zuhr and Asr prayers in a corner of the office. My non-Muslim colleagues not only accepted this practice but would sometimes remind me, "Akhtar Sahib, what's the matter? You haven't prayed yet?" This selfless kindness and the atmosphere of mutual respect further highlighted the social relationships and values of brotherhood from that era in my heart. This attitude proved that humanity can never be divided based on religion and culture, as long as there is sincerity and respect in the heart.

    This writing offers a glimpse into the era of the late Pandit Nehru and the Congress rule, when values of religious unity and communal harmony were strong in both the office environment and social life. It was a time when Nehru and the Congress leadership practically implemented slogans like "Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas" (Together with all, Development for all, Trust of all), presenting a social image that was quite different from today's. However, in opposition to the era of Muslim rulers, those who spoke against these values gained political advantages, which later benefited the Hindutva brigade in elections. The condemnation of Pandit Nehru distanced the public from Congress, but behind this political maneuver, a new chapter of anti-Muslim sentiment was being written. Muslims were targeted in the name of social development, and discriminatory practices were adopted in legislation. This not only drew a deep line of division in society based on religion, but also impacted sensitive areas such as the judicial system.

    Today, in the states where the ruling party dominates, there is a clear bias in the behavior of the courts. Historical mosques, shrines, and khanqahs are being targeted, and Muslims are being harassed in the name of the ruins of temples or the remains of deities. Orders for surveys are being issued while disregarding the Act related to places of worship, and through legal technicalities, Muslims are made to feel their helplessness. This situation is not only weakening the fundamental principles of communal harmony and judicial justice in society, but it is also continuously rendering Muslims deprived. This organized campaign against Muslims has targeted their social status on one hand, and on the other hand, it has dealt a heavy blow to their basic rights. All of this is being done in order to gain political advantage from the seed of hatred and to appease the majority vote bank.

    In the changing political and social environment of the country, while various elements are making efforts to remind Muslims of their helplessness, some individuals within the judiciary have also become a part of this process. Justice Chandrashekhar Yadav of the High Court in Yogi Adityanath's state has raised questions about the neutrality of the judiciary through his recent statements. His views have turned a judicial position, whose purpose is to provide justice and protect the rights of all citizens, into a subject of controversy. During a seminar organized by the legal cell of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Justice Yadav made statements that completely ignored his judicial and ethical responsibilities, and these cannot be said to align with judicial dignity. He stated that this country would run according to the wishes of the majority, i.e., the Hindus. Through this statement, he not only harmed the neutrality of the judiciary but also attempted to marginalize Muslims and other minorities. Justice Yadav praised the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya while targeting the religious practices of Muslims. He accused Muslims of slaughtering animals in front of children, claiming that this leads to a loss of empathy among children. Furthermore, while teaching respect for Hindu rituals and deities, he criticized Muslims for their traditions and religious values.

    These statements come from a judge whose duty is to uphold the Constitution and ensure justice. These views have not only tarnished judicial impartiality but have also fueled the ongoing prejudice against Muslims. Such behavior from the judiciary weakens the constitutional guarantee of minority protection and puts the country's communal harmony at greater risk. Justice Yadav's views reflect a particular ideological trend that promotes religious prejudice and majority dominance. Such statements are harmful to the credibility of the judiciary and the fundamental principles of justice. It is time for the responsible members of the judiciary to pay attention to this issue and ensure that every individual in the judiciary adheres to constitutional principles and human rights. Justice Chandrashekhar Yadav went a step further in expressing his views, continuing to make hateful statements and promoting prejudice. Using derogatory terms for Muslim scholars, he labeled them as "inciters of the public and a threat to the country," which goes against any democratic and judicial responsibility. He further stated that these people are an obstacle to the country's progress and that caution is needed in dealing with them. His statements reflect organized prejudice against Muslims and are causing harm to social harmony.

    In his speech, Justice Yadav criticized several Muslim social issues such as polygamy, halala, and triple talaq, emphasizing that a Uniform Civil Code should be implemented in the country. He also claimed that practices like untouchability and dowry have been eradicated in Hinduism, but Muslims have not changed their social laws. This statement is not only factually incorrect but also attempts to attack the religious and cultural rights of Muslims. Referring to women's rights, Justice Yadav stated that no woman should be dishonored, especially those women who are recognized as goddesses in Hindu scriptures and Vedas. However, in the same breath, he targeted Muslim marriage laws, claiming that Muslims should not have the right to marry four wives or practice halala. His views are in direct contradiction to the secular Constitution of the country and the principles of legal equality.

    These statements not only reflect prejudice against Muslims but also harm the neutrality and dignity of such an important institution as the judiciary. Justice Yadav’s statement that a Uniform Civil Code will soon be implemented in the country suggests that he is using his judicial position to promote a particular ideological agenda. These views challenge the constitutional principles of the country, especially those that safeguard religious freedom and cultural diversity. Criticizing Muslim marriage laws, Justice Yadav overlooked the fact that these laws are recognized under the Muslim Personal Law Board and are related to the religious beliefs of Muslims. These statements are in violation of the constitutional commitment to protecting minority rights and target a specific religious group. Such statements undermine the trust in the judiciary and fuel hatred and divisions among the public. It is necessary for the responsible members of the judiciary to take action against such biased views to maintain the dignity of the judiciary and promote social harmony in the country.

    Justice Chandrashekhar Yadav's statements not only promote religious prejudice but also undermine the principles of judicial neutrality and fairness. He targeted Muslim marital and religious traditions under the guise of respecting women and portrayed them as being in contrast to Hindu culture. His claim that "members of one community claim the right to have multiple wives, practice halala, or follow triple talaq" is an attempt to spread hatred against a particular group, which is against judicial ethics. In his speech, Justice Yadav emphasized the importance of cows, the Ganga, and the Gita as essential components of Indian culture, but through this statement, he tried to impose a particular religious and cultural ideology on the entire nation. His statement that "Indian identity is incomplete without mentioning the Ganga" is an attempt to limit India's diversity and multicultural identity.

    By praising Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and supporting his views, Justice Yadav further made his speech biased and unconstitutional. Calling Yogi Ji "the greatest cow worshiper" and promoting a political agenda is against judicial independence. Even the mention of declaring the cow as the national animal and claiming that cows "release oxygen" are unscientific and emotional statements, which further make his role as a judicial figure controversial. Such statements affect the dignity and trust in the judicial process, and raise concerns about the judiciary being used for a political or religious agenda.

    Justice Yadav's statements are against India's constitutional principles, such as religious freedom, secularism, and judicial neutrality. These statements not only harm the rights of minorities but also endanger India's democratic and social harmony. To preserve the dignity and neutrality of the judiciary, it is crucial that such statements be strongly condemned and judicial responsibilities be kept free from politics and prejudice.

    Justice Yadav's biased statements have raised serious questions about the neutrality and fairness of India's judiciary. His open remarks against Islam and Muslims at a seminar organized by a group like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad reveal deep religious prejudice and bias in his mindset. How can a person with such views, who openly expresses hatred against a particular religious community, be expected to provide impartial justice from the bench? This statement not only mentally torments Indian Muslims but also shakes those secular Hindus and proponents of communal harmony who wish to see India as a peaceful and developed country. Following this incident, calls for action against Justice Yadav from secular groups and various organizations have intensified, but given past experiences, it is hard to believe that any concrete steps will be taken against him. The reality is that in India's current political and social environment, individuals who promote religious hatred often remain unscathed. The lack of effective action against them is causing growing frustration and insecurity among minorities. Just a few years ago, those who openly called for the killing of Muslims in Dehradun have yet to be punished. Similarly, individuals who insulted the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and have close ties with the government continue to roam freely.

    The lack of action against Justice Yadav points to the significant political pressure exerted on both the judiciary and the administration. Such behavior weakens the rule of law and the principle of judicial impartiality in the country. The protection of the rights of Muslims and other minorities will only be possible when the law is equally applied to all, without discrimination. It is unfortunate that in India's current scenario, those who make hateful statements are not only allowed to go unpunished but are also encouraged. In this situation, all secular minds and justice-loving individuals in India must unite and raise their voices against this behavior, to keep alive the principles of equality, justice, and fraternity in the country.

By: Md Fidaul Mustafa Qadri

Degree Student: Darul Huda Islamic University

Contact. No: 9037099731