Why in News?

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has faced widespread criticism for comments made during an event organised by the legal cell of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Controversial Remarks of Allahabad HC Judge and Backlash
• Judicial Ethics and Conduct
• The Impeachment Process for Judges
• Conclusion

Controversial Remarks and Backlash:

• Key comments:
  • Justice Yadav stated that the country operates as per the wishes of the majority population in India.
  • He made divisive remarks comparing values taught to children of different communities, emphasising the practice of animal slaughter.
  • Advocated for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), asserting that Hindus revere women as goddesses, in contrast to practices like polygamy and triple talaq in another community.
• Response from legal and civil bodies:
  • Supreme Court’s reaction: The SC noted the issue and sought details from the Allahabad HC, stating the matter is under consideration.
  • Criticism from legal fraternity:
    • All India Lawyers Union termed the comments as leaning towards a "Hindutva Rashtra."
    • Prashant Bhushan’s Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms alleged violations of judicial ethics.
    • Kapil Sibal, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, called for Justice Yadav’s impeachment.

Judicial Ethics and Conduct:

• Standards for judicial conduct:
  • 1985 UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary: These principles seek to bridge the gap between ideal judicial independence and real-world practices, ensuring that -
    • Justice is upheld,
    • Human rights are preserved, and
    • The court acts without discrimination.
  • Restatement of values of judicial life (1997): It is a code of judicial ethics (comprising 16 points) adopted by the SC. It emphasises impartiality and behaviour that reaffirms public confidence in the judiciary.
  • Bangalore principles of judicial conduct (2002):
    • The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted a resolution to complement the 1985 UN Basic Principles.
    • It requires judges to act with dignity, impartiality, and independence while respecting societal diversity.
• Alleged violations: Justice Yadav’s remarks and participation in a politically affiliated event appear to contravene these codes, undermining the judiciary’s perceived neutrality.

The Impeachment Process for Judges:

• Constitutional provisions:
  • A judge may be removed from office through a motion adopted by Parliament on grounds of ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’.
  • While the Constitution does not use the word ‘impeachment’, it is commonly used to refer to the proceedings under Article 124 (for the removal of a SC judge) and Article 218 (for the removal of a HC judge).
  • The Constitution provides that a judge can be removed only by an order of the President, based on a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament.
• The procedure for removal of judges:
  • It is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, which sets out the steps for removal from office.
  • Impeachment requires a special majority (a majority of the total membership of that House; and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting) in Parliament.
• In-house procedure: Established in 1999 and publicly released in 2014. Steps include:
  • Submission of a complaint to the President, Chief Justice of India (CJI), or High Court Chief Justice.
  • Inquiry by a fact-finding committee comprising senior judges if allegations are serious.
  • Recommendation for voluntary retirement or escalation to impeachment if the judge refuses to step down.

Conclusion:

• Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial remarks have reignited discussions on judicial accountability and ethics.
• The case underscores the importance of impartiality in the judiciary and adherence to established codes of conduct.
• The judiciary’s response will be pivotal in maintaining public trust and upholding constitutional principles.