The Supreme Court on Wednesday cautioned that judges should avoid casual comments which are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community.
The top court was expressing concerns about the remarks made by a Judge of the Karnataka High Court who called a particular locality of Bengaluru as “Pakistan.”
“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.
A 5-judge bench comprising 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, according to Live Law.
In one video, he was seen referring to an area in Bangalore, which is apparently Muslim-dominated, as “Pakistan.”
The apex court today decided not to pursue the matter further in the light of the regret expressed by the Judge in the open court after the Supreme Court’s intervention over the viral video clips, Live Law 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 in the order.
“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 approrpiate modulation of behaviour both on the part of the bench as well as the bar,” the bench observed.
“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 emphasise 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.”
The bench noted that the Report of the Registrar General of the High Court has extracted the statement of regret expressed by the judge in the open court on September 21, after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance.
“The learned judge has indicated that (1) certain observations made by him were quoted out of context in the social context, (2) the observations were unintentional and were not intended to hurt any individual or section of the society, (3) an apology is tendered if any individual or section of the society has been directly or indirectly hurt. Bearing in mind the contrived apology which has been tendered by the judge of the High Court in the course of open court proceeding, we consider in the interest of justice and dignity of justice to not pursue the proceedings further,” the bench noted.
