Thirteen senior advocates have addressed a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, urging him to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a first information report (FIR) against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court.

The letter, also copied to Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy, and AS Oka, was prompted by Justice Yadav's controversial speech at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event.

The letter calls for suo motu action, citing the seriousness of Justice Yadav’s remarks and requesting the CBI to register an FIR under the guidelines established in the K Veeraswami judgment. It was signed by prominent Senior Advocates, including Indira Jaising, Aspi Chinoy, Navroz Seervai, Anand Grover, and others.

The controversy stems from Justice Yadav’s December 8 speech at a VHP event where he discussed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). His remarks, asserting that India should function according to the majority population's wishes, sparked outrage. The speech, characterized as inflammatory by the signatories, included derogatory references, such as the term "kathmullah," a slur against Muslims. The letter argued that the speech lacked any academic or legal substance and instead served to propagate hate speech.

Justice Yadav's statements emphasized a majoritarian perspective on governance, using terms like “bahusankhyak” (majority) and drawing divisive distinctions between religious groups. For instance, he referred to “hamari Gita” (our Gita) and “aapki Koran” (your Koran), framing the discourse in a polarizing "us versus them" narrative. The letter described these remarks as undermining constitutional principles of equality, justice, and judicial impartiality.

The letter further highlighted a report by The Indian Express in which Justice Yadav defended his comments. The Senior Advocates asserted that his speech violated Sections 196 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by hurting religious sentiments and promoting enmity between groups. They expressed concerns about the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality.

Referencing the 1991 K Veeraswami judgment, which requires prior consultation with the CJI before registering a criminal case against a High Court or Supreme Court judge, the letter emphasized the necessity of the CJI's intervention. The advocates stressed that such communally charged statements from a sitting judge jeopardize religious harmony and demand accountability.