During a heated SC hearing on Bihar’s voter roll revision, Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Our own social media websites are sufficient,” while addressing concerns of criticism from foreign media. The case highlights worries over arbitrary voter deletions and rising misinformation against the judiciary.
In a hearing that had serious exchanges but also a rare moment of humour, the Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on the Election Commission of India’s “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls ahead of the Assembly elections.
The matter came before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The petitions were filed by civil society organisations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).
They alleged that during the revision process, there were large-scale and arbitrary deletions of voters’ names, particularly affecting women, Muslims and other marginalised groups.
During the arguments, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who was appearing in-person, raised a concern that India’s democratic institutions, including the judiciary and the Election Commission, were being unfairly criticised in foreign media.
He said,
“This is all an exercise to defame our judiciary and our country.”
To this, Justice Surya Kant responded with a witty remark that lightened the tense atmosphere of the courtroom.
He said,
“No, don’t get bothered about foreign newspapers or anything. For that, our own social media websites are sufficient.”
This response drew laughter inside the courtroom, but it also reflected a deeper concern the judiciary has expressed in recent years. Judges have often noted how social media spreads misinformation and misrepresents court proceedings or remarks.
Justice Kant’s quip seemed to underline that the strongest criticism and misinformation do not necessarily come from foreign outlets, but from within India’s own digital platforms.
ALSO READ: CJI BR Gavai Warns: ‘Social Media Can Misinterpret Judges’ Remarks’
The discussion came a day after a serious incident in the Supreme Court when Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai faced an attempted attack inside his courtroom. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had strongly condemned the incident, linking it to the misuse of social media.
He said,
“Today’s incident in the Chief Justice’s court is unfortunate and deserves condemnation. This is the result of misinformation in social media.”
Defending the CJI, SG Mehta added,
“I have personally seen Chief Justice visiting religious places of all religions with full reverence. The Chief Justice has also clarified this position. It is not understood what promoted one miscreant to do what he did today. It appears to be an act of some attention seeker wanting cheap publicity.”
The attack occurred when Advocate Rakesh Kishore, dressed in full lawyer’s uniform and carrying a bag and papers, tried to approach CJI Gavai aggressively.
He shouted,
“Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan,”
before being restrained and removed from the court. Later, he apologised before Justice K. Vinod Chandran, saying that his actions were aimed only at Justice Gavai.
The incident was linked to a recent hearing concerning the restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. In that matter, CJI Gavai had refused to give relief and said,
“Go and ask the deity now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, so go and pray now.”
After criticism, the CJI clarified his position by saying,
“I respect all religions.”
Solicitor General Mehta once again defended him, stressing that the CJI’s remarks were taken out of context.
He said,
“I have known CJI for last ten years..this is serious..we know Newton’s law, every action has equal reaction..now every action has disproportionate social media reaction..”
The CJI-led Bench in that case had noted that since Khajuraho is an archaeological site, permission from the Archaeological Survey of India would be required for any restoration.
These recent controversies come against the backdrop of increasing debate about how judicial independence and judges’ remarks are portrayed in the public sphere.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Orders Delhi Govt to Report on Threat to Unnao Rape Victim’s Mother
Former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud had also spoken about this issue during an event in Mumbai last month. He said that judicial independence is often wrongly understood through the lens of social media debates.
“Unless you decide every single case along the ideological lines of ‘I’ – the person on social media – then you are independent. The moment you decide a case against an ideology, you are labelled pro-government.”
In the ongoing case of Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr., the Election Commission has defended its voter roll revision exercise, claiming that there are no ground-level complaints.
It argued that the concerns raised were mostly by activists in Delhi who were relying on data analysis. As the hearing continues, the Supreme Court will weigh these allegations against the defence put forward by the ECI.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI BR Gavai
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
