The apex court emphasises the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial discourse
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly reprimanded Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda for referring to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as ‘Pakistan’ during a court proceeding.
The comment, made in the context of a landlord-tenant dispute, sparked outrage after a video clip of the hearing went viral. In addition to this, the judge also made gender-based remarks about a woman lawyer present during the hearing.
A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and H Roy, addressed the matter after Justice Srishananda issued a public apology during the court session on September 21. “In open court proceedings, the high court judge has apologised, and in the interest of justice and the dignity of the court, we would not like to proceed further,” Chief Justice Chandrachud stated, indicating that the matter was resolved after the judge’s apology.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed deep concern over the inappropriate remarks made by Justice Srishananda, underlining that such comments risk undermining India’s territorial integrity. CJI Chandrachud firmly asserted, “We cannot call any part of India ‘Pakistan.’ It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the country.”
The apex court also highlighted the broader implications of such remarks in today’s media-driven environment, especially given the increasing reliance on live streaming and video conferencing of court proceedings, which became essential during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Casual observations during judicial proceedings may reflect personal bias,” the bench warned, stressing that courts should avoid making comments that could be perceived as offensive or harmful to any section of society.
The Supreme Court addressed the growing influence of social media, noting that its vast reach makes it nearly impossible to control the spread of information. CJI Chandrachud remarked, “The answer to sunlight is more sunlight,” emphasising the importance of transparency in court proceedings. “What happened should not be suppressed. It is important advice for everyone, and the solution is not to close doors or stop live-streaming.”
The comment came in response to concerns raised over the impact of the viral video featuring Justice Srishananda’s remarks, as well as discussions surrounding the potential halting of live-streaming due to controversial statements.
During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani stated that he had seen the viral video and expressed his concerns about the judge’s conduct. He mentioned that he had spoken to members of the Bengaluru bar not just about this incident but also other related matters. “I was wondering if there would be any domestic action,” he said, raising questions about the possible disciplinary actions the Karnataka judiciary might consider.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also weighed in, acknowledging that sometimes even those in positions of power make inappropriate statements. “Now we are in the eyes of all people,” Mehta remarked, underscoring the public scrutiny that comes with judicial positions.
Last week, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter after the controversial comments gained widespread attention. The Chief Justice of India sought a report from the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court on the issue.
This action came after the remarks, along with the judge’s anti-women comments, prompted criticism in legal and civil rights circles. Many called for accountability, particularly in light of the offensive nature of the remarks directed at the woman lawyer involved in the case.
The video clip, widely shared on social media, captured Justice Srishananda referring to the Muslim-majority area of Bengaluru as ‘Pakistan.’ This comment, coupled with the anti-women remarks, raised concerns over potential biases within the judiciary and sparked a larger conversation about the role of judges in maintaining the dignity of the court.
The Supreme Court’s swift intervention and condemnation serve as a reminder of the high standards to which judicial officers must adhere. While the case has been closed following the judge’s public apology, the incident has prompted a national conversation about the responsibilities and impartiality expected from the judiciary.
As the judiciary continues to adapt to the challenges posed by modern media platforms, the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasises that transparency must not come at the cost of integrity and fairness in the courtroom.
