The Supreme Court took a dim view of Justice V Srishananda’s reference to a Muslim-majority Bengaluru locality as Pakistan and his misogynistic comment at a woman advocate.
Team Clarion
BENGALURU — Just a day after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of his controversial observations during judicial proceedings, Justice V Srishananda on Saturday expressed his regrets in an open court statement. The observations went viral and created a huge storm in both political and judicial circles.
In a statement on Saturday, the judge said his comments were unintentional and not aimed at hurting any individual or section of society.
In the first video, the judge referred to an area in Bengaluru as Pakistan while speaking about Gori Palya in the west of Bengaluru, and in another instance, he reprimanded a woman lawyer by making a gender-insensitive comment.
The remark about Pakistan was met with shock, especially from activists and community leaders, as Gori Palya is home to a significant Muslim population. Social media platform X (formerly Twitter) was flooded with demands for accountability.
Justice Srishananda said his observations were unintentional and not meant to hurt any individual or any section of society. If such observations hurt any individual or any section of society or community, I express my sincere regrets,” he said.
Justice Srishananda said that his comments were reported out of context and, in the second case, were not directed at the woman advocate involved in the case, but rather at her client. He said he would clarify the situation to the advocate herself but added that she was not present in court. He requested office-bearers of the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru (AAB), to convey his message to her.
Referring to Gori Palya as “Pakistan,” during a hearing on motor vehicle laws, Srishananda said, “Go to Mysuru Road flyover, every auto rickshaw has 10 people. The law is not applicable there because Mysuru Road flyover, up to the market from Gori Palya, is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality… Even a strict police officer wouldn’t catch those violating the rules by carrying more than 10 people in an autorickshaw.”
In a second clip, Justice Srishanada, during a cheque dishonour case hearing, told a woman lawyer, “You know everything about him. Tomorrow morning, you can even tell me the colour of his undergarment.”
The controversy prompted the Supreme Court of India to take suo motu cognisance of the matter. A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, sought a report from the Registrar-General of the Karnataka High Court on the issue and the matter will be heard on September 25.
Senior advocate Vivek Subbareddy, the president of the Advocates’ Association of Bengaluru, who was present in court on Saturday, said judgments rendered by Justice Srishananda were excellent, “but lordships, these side-‘kathas’ and ‘upakathas’ during the hearing are affecting lawyers too when these are live-streamed (sic)”. At this juncture, Justice Srishananda said he would stop them.
Advocates’ Association of Bengaluru office-bearers pointed out that YouTubers posting clips of live-streaming of court proceedings with wrong and misleading headlines and tag lines were affecting lawyers. The registrar general and registrar judicial will have to control such YouTubers, they added.
