The recent remarks by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event have ignited a storm of criticism and concern. By stating that the decisions of the majority community will prevail in the country, Justice Yadav has not only violated the constitutional ethos but also undermined the dignity of the judiciary. His oath of office commits him to uphold the Constitution in letter and spirit — not to cater to the whims of any particular community, let alone the so-called “majority”.
Justice Yadav’s comments, implying an incompatibility between communities based on cultural and dietary practices, betray a simplistic and divisive worldview. His insinuation that children raised in non-vegetarian households lack “Sanatana” values ignores the reality that a significant proportion of the majority community relishes non-vegetarian food. Historical and cultural evidence further debunks such stereotypes — after all, Hitler, one of history’s most infamous figures, was a strict vegetarian. Food habits are a product of geography, culture, and personal choice; they cannot and should not be moralised or weaponised to sow discord.
More troublingly, Justice Yadav’s assertion that the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will be implemented soon, unlike the prolonged wait for the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, smacks of political overreach. What right does he have to give such a guarantee? Judges are free to hold personal opinions, but using public platforms to air such statements undermines the impartiality of the judiciary. His remarks echo a disturbing trend of judges seeking publicity through controversial or outright bizarre statements — such as a Rajasthan High Court judge claiming that peacocks reproduce without mating or a Madras High Court judge posing inappropriate, sex-related questions in court.
Such behaviour not only erodes public trust in the judiciary but also emboldens political interference. The example of a former West Bengal High Court judge, who transitioned overnight from delivering anti-state government rulings to becoming a nominee of the BJP, illustrates the unholy nexus between the judiciary and politics. The Chief Justice of India must act decisively to curb this growing trend of judicial populism. Judges must remember that their credibility lies in their impartiality, not their ability to attract headlines. When judges appear to prioritise personal beliefs or political inclinations over constitutional values, it is the justice system—and, ultimately, the nation—that suffers. The judiciary must remain above the fray, for its sanctity is essential to the health of Indian democracy.
