There's no place for majoritarian judges
Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav had forsaken even the fig leaf of being above suspicion when he declared that India should function according to the wishes of the 'bahusankhyak' (majority) while attending a VHP event on the Uniform Civil Code. To boot, he even bandied a derogatory term to describe rigid Muslim clerics. While Supreme Court has sought a report on his actions, Yadav should be removed as judge.
Judges must be reminded, despite noises from politicians, that wearing their opinions on their sleeves-especially communal ones-can't be yet another 'new normal'.
Yadav flagrantly violated the Constitution, the very document that empowers him to preside over the law. His conduct not only sullies the dignity of his office but also seriously undermines public trust in the judiciary as a fair and neutral arbiter of justice, giving the impression that being a majoritarian is kosher. It is not-not as a citizen, and less so as an arbiter of justice in a country that still sees virtue and strength in being impartial to all religions.
Impeaching a judge is no simple task.
Under the Constitution, a high court (or Supreme Court) judge can be removed by presidential order only after both Houses of Parliament pass the motion with a 'special majority'. Despite four attempts to impeach errant judges in the past, none has succeeded. Constitutional limitations further hinder the judiciary's ability to discipline its own flock.
In most cases, the top court resorts to transferring problem judges-a practice not always equitable, as every bench deserves only the most capable, impartial adjudicators. Despite these hurdles, Yadav must be relieved of his duties. A message must be sent out.
