Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, currently under scrutiny for his controversial remarks against Muslims and advocacy for the Uniform Civil Code, faced significant opposition during his elevation to the bench of the Allahabad High Court.
This opposition, intriguingly, came from none other than Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was then a puisne judge of the Supreme Court and later became the Chief Justice of India, according to a report published in The Leaflet.
Supreme Court documents, accessed by The Leaflet, reveal that in 2018, Justice Chandrachud had submitted a detailed 21-page evaluation of the lawyers recommended for elevation by the Allahabad High Court Collegium.
Among them was advocate Yadav, whose candidacy Chandrachud strongly opposed, citing inadequate experience, political affiliations, and close connections to members of the BJP and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
In his letter dated August 13, 2018, to then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Chandrachud characterized Yadav as an “average lawyer” with insufficient work experience despite his age of 54.
He highlighted Yadav’s active association with the RSS and his proximity to a prominent BJP Rajya Sabha MP (now a Union minister) and a BJP media cell member.
Chandrachud had concluded unequivocally, stating, “He is not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court.”
Despite Chandrachud’s objections, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices A.K. Sikri and S.A. Bobde, decided on February 12, 2019, to recommend Yadav’s elevation along with nine other deferred candidates.
The government subsequently approved these appointments, and Yadav became an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on December 12, 2019.
He was later made a permanent judge on March 26, 2021, with his tenure set to end on April 15, 2026.
Justice Chandrachud, in an interview with legal news portal Live Law, confirmed The Leaflet's story about his dissent.
“Yes, as a consultee judge, I had strongly opposed his appointment as a judge of the Allahabad High Court. I have read The Leaflet's piece, where they have reported my letter. However, the collegium was not bound to accept my views,” he stated.
Justice Chandrachud’s reservations about Yadav were part of a broader critique of the 33 lawyer-candidates recommended by the Allahabad High Court Collegium. Of these, Chandrachud supported only six, while declaring 22 unsuitable, three requiring further scrutiny, and two needing deferred consideration.
Justice Yadav’s recent remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event on the premises of the Allahabad High Court have reignited concerns. His speech, which openly targeted Muslims and endorsed the Uniform Civil Code, sparked a massive backlash.
In response, 55 Rajya Sabha MPs submitted a petition to the Vice President, who chairs the Upper House, seeking Yadav’s impeachment for making “hate speech” and “inciting communal disharmony.”
The Supreme Court has also taken note of the incident. It summoned Justice Yadav on December 17 for an interaction to provide him an opportunity to explain his position. Before this, the apex court sought a report on the matter from the Allahabad High Court.
Reportedly unsatisfied with his explanation, the Collegium cautioned Yadav to exercise restraint in his public statements.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna subsequently briefed the full court on the Collegium’s interaction with Yadav.
While the matter remains unresolved, the Supreme Court has adopted a cautious “wait-and-watch” stance.
This opposition, intriguingly, came from none other than Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was then a puisne judge of the Supreme Court and later became the Chief Justice of India, according to a report published in The Leaflet.
Supreme Court documents, accessed by The Leaflet, reveal that in 2018, Justice Chandrachud had submitted a detailed 21-page evaluation of the lawyers recommended for elevation by the Allahabad High Court Collegium.
Among them was advocate Yadav, whose candidacy Chandrachud strongly opposed, citing inadequate experience, political affiliations, and close connections to members of the BJP and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
In his letter dated August 13, 2018, to then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Chandrachud characterized Yadav as an “average lawyer” with insufficient work experience despite his age of 54.
He highlighted Yadav’s active association with the RSS and his proximity to a prominent BJP Rajya Sabha MP (now a Union minister) and a BJP media cell member.
Chandrachud had concluded unequivocally, stating, “He is not suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court.”
Despite Chandrachud’s objections, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices A.K. Sikri and S.A. Bobde, decided on February 12, 2019, to recommend Yadav’s elevation along with nine other deferred candidates.
The government subsequently approved these appointments, and Yadav became an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on December 12, 2019.
He was later made a permanent judge on March 26, 2021, with his tenure set to end on April 15, 2026.
Justice Chandrachud, in an interview with legal news portal Live Law, confirmed The Leaflet's story about his dissent.
“Yes, as a consultee judge, I had strongly opposed his appointment as a judge of the Allahabad High Court. I have read The Leaflet's piece, where they have reported my letter. However, the collegium was not bound to accept my views,” he stated.
Justice Chandrachud’s reservations about Yadav were part of a broader critique of the 33 lawyer-candidates recommended by the Allahabad High Court Collegium. Of these, Chandrachud supported only six, while declaring 22 unsuitable, three requiring further scrutiny, and two needing deferred consideration.
Justice Yadav’s recent remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event on the premises of the Allahabad High Court have reignited concerns. His speech, which openly targeted Muslims and endorsed the Uniform Civil Code, sparked a massive backlash.
In response, 55 Rajya Sabha MPs submitted a petition to the Vice President, who chairs the Upper House, seeking Yadav’s impeachment for making “hate speech” and “inciting communal disharmony.”
The Supreme Court has also taken note of the incident. It summoned Justice Yadav on December 17 for an interaction to provide him an opportunity to explain his position. Before this, the apex court sought a report on the matter from the Allahabad High Court.
Reportedly unsatisfied with his explanation, the Collegium cautioned Yadav to exercise restraint in his public statements.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna subsequently briefed the full court on the Collegium’s interaction with Yadav.
While the matter remains unresolved, the Supreme Court has adopted a cautious “wait-and-watch” stance.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment