Stick to the Brief

A judge created a stir recently by making unnecessary remarks in a bail order. These go against the principles of judicial discipline and secular ethos. A judge is supposed to go by facts and laws

- Lokendra Malik and Yogesh Pratap Singh

IT is vital for any country governed by the rule of law that its judges decide cases solely on the evidence presented by parties and law. Judicial accountability vanishes when a judge travels beyond the case and makes unnecessary remarks in his decisions. This would set a precarious precedent and is undesirable.

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a judge of the Allahabad High Court, once again made headlines in a bail order. He suggested to the Election Commission that it ban poll rallies and postpone the UP assembly elections for a few months given the rising Covid-19 cases in the state. In fact, in the last portion of his order, the judge praised the central government for its free Covid-19 vaccination drive and directed the Registrar of the High Court to send a copy of his order to the Election Commission and the Registrar-General of the High Court of Allahabad.

When the judge heard the case, his courtroom was packed with lawyers and this seems to have prompted him to make these remarks. His concerns may be genuine, but such remarks should not be included in the orders of the court.

This is not the first time that Justice Yadav has gone beyond the pleadings in his bail orders/judgments. In July last year, he made some remarks about inter-faith marriages and conversion that also made headlines. “We come across news of the poor, disabled, and women getting converted after they are brainwashed by external sources. The worst thing is that these practices are funded by elements outside the country and solely done for the purpose of damaging the nation.”