The Supreme Court Today (Sept 25) took strong exception to controversial statement made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda who referred to a particular locality in Bengaluru as ‘Pakistan’. A five-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy issued a strong of note of caution for judges and lawyers, saying that they should take care to ensure that their personal biases are not reflected while discharging their duties.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India expressed strong disapproval over a controversial statement made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda, where he referred to a particular locality in Bengaluru as ‘Pakistan‘. This statement raised serious concerns about the impartiality expected from judicial officers.
A five-judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, emphasized the importance of judges and lawyers ensuring that their personal biases do not interfere with their professional responsibilities. They urged caution, pointing out that such remarks can have far-reaching consequences.
“We can’t call any part of the territory of India as Pakistan because that fundamentally is contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation,”
-the Bench stated, reaffirming the need to protect the sovereignty of the country.
Although the Supreme Court took note of Justice Srishananda’s apology and subsequently closed the suo motu proceedings initiated in response to his remark, the apex court did not refrain from expressing its serious concerns regarding such statements.
“Thus casual observation may indicate personal biases, especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus, one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution,”
-the top court observed.
The Court also highlighted the growing influence of social media in disseminating judicial proceedings, noting that such remarks could have a wider impact when reported to the general public. This requires all members of the judiciary to be more mindful of their words and predispositions to maintain impartiality in the delivery of justice.
“The prevalence and reach of social media has included wide reporting of court proceedings. Most High Courts in the country have now adopted rules for livestreaming or conduct of video conferencing, which emerged as a necessity during the COVID pandemic. It became an important outreach facility for courts to mete out access to justice. All parties—judges, lawyers, and litigants—must be aware that proceedings reach audiences who are well beyond the physical precincts of the court, and thus all must be aware of the wider impact of observations on the community at large. As judges, we are conscious of the fact that each individual has a set of predispositions based on early or later experiences of life. It is important that a judge is aware of their own predispositions, and the heart and soul of a judge is when they are impartial. Only then can we deliver objective justice,”
-the Court remarked.
The Bench further underscored that the values guiding judicial decision-making must be rooted in the principles enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that the Constitution remains the ultimate source of legal guidance for all stakeholders in the judiciary.
BACKGROUND
On Friday, September 20, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of video clips that have surfaced online, featuring controversial comments made by Karnataka High Court Judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, during recent hearings.
The issue was addressed by a five-judge bench, including Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy. The bench assembled this morning and passed an order requesting a report from the Karnataka High Court.
The controversy arose after two video clips of Justice Srishananda were circulated on social media. In one of the videos, the judge referred to a locality in Bangalore as “Pakistan.” In a separate clip, he was heard making objectionable remarks directed at a woman advocate, which triggered widespread concerns over the appropriateness of such comments in a judicial setting.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, commenting on the matter, stated:
“The attention of the court has been drawn to media reports pertaining to certain comments made by KHC Justice V Srishananda. We have requested the Attorney General and Solicitor General to assist this court, and we request the Karnataka High Court’s Registrar General to submit a report after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court.”
The report, once completed, will be submitted to the Registrar General of the Supreme Court.
The court has scheduled the matter to be taken up again on Wednesday, allowing time for the Karnataka High Court to investigate the issue and submit its findings. This development highlights the Supreme Court’s immediate concern with maintaining the decorum and integrity of judicial proceedings across courts in India.
BACKGROUND
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, is facing intense scrutiny after two separate video clips of his courtroom remarks surfaced on social media, both of which have drawn widespread outrage.
In the first video, which went viral earlier, Justice Srishananda referred to a Muslim-dominated sub-locality in West Bengaluru as “Pakistan.” This comment quickly attracted criticism, with many questioning the appropriateness of such a remark, particularly from a sitting judge.
Shortly after this incident, another video of the judge emerged, where he is seen making a gender-insensitive comment during a court session. In the clip, Justice Srishananda reprimands a woman lawyer for responding to a question that had been directed to the counsel for the opposite party. When the woman lawyer interjects, confirming that the person in question was an income tax assessee, the judge responds by questioning her reasons for answering.
“Wait amma,”
-Justice Srishananda says, addressing the woman lawyer who then apologizes for her interruption. The judge continues, stating,
“You know everything of him. If asked tomorrow, you will tell what colour of undergarment he wears,”
-while smiling.
This comment was made in Kannada, and it reportedly elicited smiles from the other counsel present in the courtroom, though the remarks have sparked outrage outside the courtroom.
The videos have provoked a strong response on social media, with many calling for accountability and action against the judge. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, a prominent voice on gender rights, took to her X (formerly Twitter) account to share the video, demanding that Justice Srishananda be sent for gender sensitization training.
“We call upon the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu action against this judge and send him for gender sensitization training,”
-Jaising posted on X, echoing the growing sentiment that strict action is necessary.
These incidents have amplified public discourse around judicial conduct and gender sensitivity within the legal system. The controversy has also underscored the importance of respectful language and conduct from those in positions of authority, particularly in a courtroom setting, where decorum is essential.
As outrage continues to build, many are awaiting further developments, with calls for the judiciary to take prompt action and address the concerns raised by these remarks.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Controversial Remarks
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
