The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday concluded its proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for making controversial remarks during a court session. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, heading a five-judge bench, emphasized that the decision was made to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and serve the interests of justice.
Justice Srishananda found himself at the center of controversy after he made inflammatory comments during a landlord-tenant dispute. In his remarks, he referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as “Pakistan” and made a misogynistic statement involving a woman lawyer. These comments, which quickly spread across social media, prompted a public outcry and led the Supreme Court to intervene.
Supreme Court’s Response to the Controversy
“No one can call any part of the territory of India as Pakistan,” Chief Justice Chandrachud asserted, addressing the court. “It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight, not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down.”
The Supreme Court, which had initiated the case independently, requested a report from the Karnataka High Court shortly after the incident. The five-judge bench, comprising CJI Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hima Kohli, expressed concern about the need for judges in constitutional courts to exercise greater caution in their courtroom comments.
ALSO READ: MUDA land scam: Setback for Siddaramaiah as Karnataka HC refuses to stay Governor’s sanction of case against him
Concerns Over Judicial Remarks
Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted the importance of judicial decorum, stating, “Casual observations may indicate personal biases, especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or community, as such remarks can easily be interpreted in a negative light.”
The bench underscored the responsibility that rests on judges to ensure their statements do not promote patriarchal or misogynistic sentiments. “We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and with due caution,” CJI Chandrachud added.
Social Media’s Role in Amplifying Courtroom Incidents
The Supreme Court also acknowledged the role of social media in amplifying incidents that occur within the courtroom. The bench noted that videos of Justice Srishananda’s comments had gone viral, making it more important than ever for judicial commentary to maintain the decorum and standards expected of the judiciary.
ALSO READ: Man held in Delhi for filming woman through hidden cameras in bulb
One of the viral videos shows Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as “Pakistan.” In another video, the judge can be heard making an inappropriate comment towards a woman lawyer, suggesting that she knew so much about the opposition party that she might even reveal the color of their undergarments.
These remarks sparked outrage across social media platforms, leading the Supreme Court to intervene and seek accountability for the judge’s actions.
Moving Forward with Judicial Decorum
In response to the incident, the Supreme Court has reiterated the need to establish clear guidelines for judges of constitutional courts regarding their public remarks. The case has further brought attention to the broader issue of how personal biases can sometimes manifest in courtroom observations, and the steps that need to be taken to prevent such occurrences in the future.
The proceedings were officially closed today, following Justice Srishananda’s public apology. However, the case serves as a critical reminder of the need for impartiality and caution in judicial commentary, especially in an era where social media can instantly amplify any perceived misconduct.
