Dear Justice Shekhar Yadav,

Respect cannot be ordered; it has to be earned. My first impulse was not to address you as Justice, for you had forfeited the right to be addressed so. But the office you hold expects me to address you deferentially. I have my own standards, as you have your own.

I am sure you know why I thought it necessary to write an open letter to you. To be frank, I do not know the meaning of the term "Kathmullahs." I could have done research and found out why it is used for Muslims. My thought was, why should I learn an abusive word when I can learn one more word like "brain-rot," which depicts a state of mind whereby one enjoys a video that depicts farting in public.

It is difficult for me to believe that you are a judge of the Allahabad High Court, which has Allah in its name and which produced some of the greatest judges and lawyers in the country, like Motilal Nehru. Sorry, I should not have mentioned his name, as his son is a hated figure for those who wield political power.

It is said that a person is known by the company he keeps. You might have been influenced by the ethos of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad when you made that controversial speech. Unlike many others who would have disowned your speech, the VHP has shown the courage to defend you. Naturally, it treats you as one of their own.

I wish you had studied history, for you would have known that the VHP is an offshoot of an organisation that was banned twice. The first time it was banned by a person whose memory Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to perpetuate, for which he built the tallest statue in the world overlooking the Narmada Sarovar dam in Gujarat.

Judges, whether of a lower or higher court, should not mix with people, for they can come under undue influence. Also, they should not address political gatherings, as it will be at the cost of their credibility. In your case, you boldly asserted, "This is India, and it will be run according to the majority community of this country." When did you get this awakening?

When you were sworn in as an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court in December 2019, you would certainly have taken the oath that you would always uphold the Constitution of India and the laws made as per its provisions. Nowhere is it written that judges will follow the dictates of the majority community.

I would urge you to read at least the Preamble of the Constitution, which clearly says that India is a secular nation where everyone—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, Parsi and Atheist—would be treated as one. Since you do not believe in this concept, the best you could have done was quit the judgeship. Sorry to say, you can't have the cake and eat it too! You can choose to be a judge or an extremist. The choice is entirely yours.

Now, let me quote once more your speech: "We teach our children about God and the Vedas, about non-violence. But you (Muslims) kill animals in front of your children. Then, how do you expect them to be tolerant and liberal?" You have absolutely no idea about the eating habits of the people of India, let alone of the world.

Recently, a video went viral on social media. It showed a marriage reception venue. The waiters wore liveried uniforms, and the marriage hall was posh. In other words, the reception was hosted by a rich man. The video became viral because people were scrambling for non-vegetarian dishes while the waiters manning the vegetarian counters were idling their time.

The point is that a majority of the majority community in the country is non-vegetarian. And non-vegetarian food is obtained by slaughtering birds or animals or catching fish. There is no other way to obtain it at the moment. Do you mean to say that they are not believers in God and are not non-violent? As regards the Vedas, the man who translated them into English and published them under the title The Sacred Books of the East was Max Muller. He was a non-vegetarian who never set foot in India.

Swami Vivekananda, who was a non-vegetarian, as almost all Bengalis are, had a meal with Muller. He said the visit was a revelation for him.

Do you know what angered Nathuram Godse, who killed Gandhi? It was not exactly Gandhi's demand that Pakistan should be given a share of the national budget, as many believe. True, it was his fast that was the proximate cause of the assassination. More than that, Godse opposed Gandhi's concept of non-violence. He feared that Hindus would become non-violent.

Godse did not believe in non-violence, though he was a strict vegetarian like Adolf Hitler. He did not like Gandhi's idea of making non-violence the hallmark of Hinduism. Godse had a point. In the Mahabharata, when Arjun refused to take up arms against his gurus, family members, and dear ones, it was Krishna who persuaded him to take up arms against his kin. In the whole text, does anyone speak against violence?

In Tulsidas' Ramacharitamanas, is there any shloka that extols non-violence? In both texts, it is through violence that solutions to disputes have been found. As the story goes, no one survived the Kurukshetra war except the Pandavas. Yes, there were victors, but the vanquished had all been eliminated. The war resulted in sarva nasam (all-around destruction).

A butcher does a job like you write your judgments. Ask them, and they will tell you that none of them would like their sons and daughters to become butchers. On the contrary, they would like them to become better judges than you and better writers than me. Please don't think that they kill animals in front of their children. How many butchers have turned killers in this country? Do you have any statistics?

We saw in Gujarat how people were pushed into bakery ovens and burnt to death. We also saw how "cultured" people gang-raped Muslim women and how "cultured" leaders received them with garlands and lighted diyas when they were released from jail. Is this the tolerance and liberalism you talk about?

You have cast aspersions on Muslim personal laws by mentioning polygamy and triple talaq. When the average Muslim is a poor man, how can he afford to have two wives, let alone four? On what basis are you claiming that Muslims are polygamous? True, Muslims were allowed to have more than one wife, but this was to take care of women who were widowed in wars.

In any case, men and women are created in almost equal numbers. For every man, there is a woman. If every Muslim man were to have four wives, women would have to be four times the number of men. Is that the case? If you go by Hindu religious texts, polyandry and polygamy were widely prevalent in society at that time.

The two-volume Hindu World is regarded as Benjamin Walker's magnum opus. It was the first encyclopaedia to cover Hinduism in all its diverse variety. It mentions different types of marriage in Hindu society, and monogamy was not one of them. When you have time, please read the encyclopaedia available in the High Court library. You will realise that you have no right to blame Islam.

Please interpret the laws drafted under the Constitution to give justice to the needy. Don't go by the propaganda that Muslims marry multiple times. I have several Muslim friends, and not one among them has more than one wife.

As regards triple talaq, the first law Modi enacted after he returned to power in 2019 was the anti-triple talaq law. You are a judge. Can you tell me how many cases of women who were triple-divorced have come up for consideration before you? It has been nearly five years since the law came into force. How many Muslim men have been convicted under the law?

In sharp contrast, tens of thousands of Hindu and Christian men and women have been knocking on the doors of courts, spending considerable sums of money seeking divorce. Instead of granting a divorce, some men simply desert their wives! Decency does not permit me to mention a case of desertion. When you still blame Muslims for triple talaq, it means you don't believe in the law Modi created to fight this non-existent menace.

Whether the country should have a uniform civil code is a matter to be decided by the people. There is already such a code in force in Goa. The political leadership of the country will make the decision in this regard. The BJP has been promising it in successive elections. The point is, what right do you have to promise such a code?

There are 25 High Courts with a sanctioned strength of 1,114 judges in India. You are just one of them. What right do you have to say that it will not take much time to introduce a uniform civil code, unlike the Ram Mandir, which took a long time? Who authorised you to speak about something that does not yet exist?

You may not know that Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and others have their own personal laws. When it comes to criminal law, it is applicable to all. How does it matter to you that some Hindus follow a matriarchal system, unlike the patriarchal system followed by Christians and Muslims? If you go to Meghalaya, you will find that most people are Christians, but they follow the matrilineal system. Hindu undivided families get certain tax exemptions, while Christians cannot adopt children. These are complicated issues that cannot be solved easily.

Instead of the Uniform Civil Code that you want to follow, I wish you had followed the Code of Conduct for judges. The code, whether written like the Indian Constitution or unwritten like the British Constitution, says how a judge should behave in public. Having heard so much nonsense, how can a litigant expect justice from you?

How will they believe that when you see a Muslim lawyer or litigant in your court, you will not see a "Kathmullah" in him? That is the kind of scare you have created. Now, ask your own conscience whether your speech will strengthen or weaken the judiciary.

We know about a judge of the Kolkata High Court who took an adamant stand when dealing with the state government. He was ruthless in handling the Mamata Banerjee government. We all realised why he behaved this way only when he suddenly resigned and was immediately given a BJP ticket to contest an election. I doubt whether you also have such a devious plan in mind.

The Yogi Adityanath government in UP will complete its term in 2027, while you will retire in 2026. Can people be blamed if they think you are angling for a party ticket so you can become a minister in UP? What a tragedy that people see motives in a judge who should, otherwise, be an epitome of impartiality!

As of now, the only way a judge can be removed is through impeachment. The Bar Council chief Kapil Sibal, who demanded your impeachment, should have known how impossible it is to impeach a judge. Sibal earned fame by defending a judge of the apex court against whom wild accusations were made. The impeachment did not happen.

The Chief Justice of India has the power to stop you from hearing cases. But I don't think he will use this power against you. So, you are safe. But what about the millions of people who have lost confidence in you as a judge? I wish you had atoned for your lapses by disowning the speech you made. That is the minimum I expect from you.