The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that judges should avoid comments which are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community.
“You can’t call any part of the territory of India as “Pakistan”. It is fundamentally contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation”, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud orally said expressing concerns about the remarks made by a Judge of the Karnataka High Court who called a particular locality of Bengaluru as “Pakistan.”
A 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the suo motu matter relating to the viral clippings of the controversial comments made by Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court during hearings. In one of the videos, Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court was seen referring to an area in Bangalore, which is apparently Muslim-dominated, as “Pakistan”. In yet another video, he was seen making objectionable remarks to a woman advocate in a matrimonial dispute.
However, The Court today chose not to take further action, considering the regret expressed by the Judge in open court following the Supreme Court’s intervention regarding the viral video clips. However, it made key observations about the importance of judicial restraint, especially in the era of electronic media, where court proceedings are widely reported.
“Casual observations may well reflect a certain degree of individual bias particularly when they are likely to be perceived as being directed against a particular gender or community. Courts therefore have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or prejudicial to any segment of our society,” the bench observed
“The perception of justice to every segment of society is as important as the rendition of justice as an objective fact. Since the judge of the Karnataka High Court is not a party to the proceedings, we desist from making any further observations, saving except to express our serious concern about both the reference to gender and to a segment of the community.
Such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light, thereby impacting not only the court of the judge who expressed that but also the wider judicial system. While we are inclined to close the proceedings, we hope and expect that the demands which have been placed on all stakeholders in the judicial system in the electronic age would elicit appropriate modulation of behavior both on the part of the bench as well as the bar,” the bench further observed.
The bench highlighted in its order that impartiality and fairness are the core of adjudication. It reminded us that judges must be guided solely by the values enshrined in the Constitution.
The heart and soul of judging is the need to be impartial and fair. Intrinsic to that process is the need for every judge to be aware of our own predispositions because it is only on the basis of such awareness that we can truly be faithful to the fundamental obligation of the judge to deliver objective and fair justice. We emphasize this because it is necessary for every stakeholder to understand that the only values which must guide judicial decision-making are those which are enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
