Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Impeachment Motion Against Justice Shekhar Yadav

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav. The motion was initiated following his controversial remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event last month. The court ruled that the PIL did not meet the criteria for maintainability.

The bench, comprising Justice A.R. Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, stated, "We do not see that the cause espoused in the present petition relates to any vulnerable section of people. Thus, on the touch stone of maintainability, the present PIL does not qualify the very test of initiation of proceedings on its threshold."

Impeachment Motion Details

Ashok Pandey filed the PIL, seeking a directive from the High Court to prevent further proceedings on the impeachment notice submitted to the Rajya Sabha secretary general by 55 MPs. These MPs demanded Justice Yadav's impeachment due to his speech at a VHP event in Prayagraj on December 8.

The notice for impeachment was based on Justice Yadav's statements during a provincial convention of the VHP's legal cell and high court unit. His speech included comments on topics like the uniform civil code, which he said aimed to foster social harmony, gender equality, and secularism.

Reactions and Controversy

Following his speech, videos surfaced online showing Justice Yadav discussing provocative issues, such as laws favouring majorities. These videos sparked significant backlash from various groups, including opposition leaders who criticised his remarks as hate speech.

The High Court bench emphasised that PILs are typically entertained when they represent causes affecting vulnerable sections of society. However, they noted that this particular PIL did not fall under such a category.

Justice Yadav's comments at the VHP event have been widely debated, with many questioning their appropriateness given his judicial position. The controversy has highlighted ongoing discussions about judicial conduct and impartiality in India.

The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining clear guidelines for PILs, ensuring they address genuine public concerns rather than individual grievances or political disputes.