The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly objected to remarks made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda, who referred to a specific locality in Bengaluru as ‘Pakistan’ during a court proceeding [IN RE: Remarks by High Court judge during Court Proceedings].
A five-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, issued a stern reminder that judges and lawyers must avoid letting personal biases influence their professional conduct.
“We cannot refer to any part of India as Pakistan, as it undermines the territorial integrity of the nation,” the Bench stated.
Despite closing the suo motu proceedings, given that the High Court judge had apologized, the Supreme Court raised significant concerns about the potential impact of such statements.
“This casual remark could indicate personal biases, especially if perceived as being aimed at a particular gender or community. We caution against making patriarchal or misogynistic comments, as they may be construed negatively. It is essential that all parties involved in the justice system act impartially and without prejudice,” the Court noted.
The Bench emphasized that, in the age of social media, judicial comments reach a broader audience, making it crucial for judges to be mindful of their words. The Court added, “The prevalence of social media and live-streaming in court proceedings has extended their reach. Judges must be aware that their observations can impact society at large. Impartiality is key to delivering objective justice.”
The Court underscored that the guiding principles for judicial decision-making should always align with the values of the Constitution.
Two videos of Justice Srishananda had circulated widely on social media. In one, he referred to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in West Bengaluru as ‘Pakistan.’ In another, he made an inappropriate remark to a woman lawyer, suggesting she might even disclose intimate details about the opposing party.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter and requested a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General. Following this, the judge issued an apology.
During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani requested that the matter be heard in chambers, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged that the issue not be prolonged, given the judge’s apology.
After making its strong observations, the Supreme Court concluded the proceedings.
