A five-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, issued a stern caution to judges and lawyers, emphasizing the importance of not allowing personal biases to influence their duties.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval on Wednesday(25th Sept) regarding controversial remarks made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda, who referred to a specific area in Bengaluru as “Pakistan”.
A five-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, issued a stern caution to judges and lawyers, emphasizing the importance of not allowing personal biases to influence their duties.
“We cannot label any part of India’s territory as Pakistan, as this fundamentally contradicts the nation’s territorial integrity,”
the bench stated.
“Should I tell you answer to sunlight is more sunlight, not to suppress what happens in the courts because this is a very important reminder to reminder to everyone. And the answer is not to close doors and shut everything down but to say ‘look how i reach these beyond these four walls,”
CJI Chandrachud said.
Despite closing the suo motu proceedings initiated on the matter, after acknowledging the High Court judge’s apology, the apex court did not shy away from voicing its concerns about such statements.
“Such casual observations may reflect personal biases, particularly when perceived as targeting a specific gender or community. Therefore, one must exercise caution to avoid making patriarchal or misogynistic remarks. We express serious concern regarding comments on certain genders or communities, as these can easily be interpreted negatively. We trust that all stakeholders will fulfill their responsibilities without bias and with due caution,”
the Supreme Court remarked.
In light of the influence of social media, the court highlighted that judges must be conscious of their biases to ensure impartiality in delivering justice.
“The extensive reach of social media has led to widespread reporting of court proceedings. Many High Courts have adopted rules for livestreaming and video conferencing, which became essential during the COVID pandemic, providing greater access to justice. All parties—judges, lawyers, and litigants—must recognize that their proceedings are viewed by audiences far beyond the court’s physical boundaries, and therefore, they should be mindful of the broader impact of their comments on the community at large. As judges, we acknowledge that every individual has inherent predispositions shaped by life experiences. It is crucial for judges to be aware of these biases, as true impartiality is essential for delivering objective justice,”
the court emphasized.
The bench underscored that the values guiding judicial decision-making should strictly adhere to the Constitution.
At the beginning, the Chief Justice of India stated, “We have received the report from the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court.” He then shared the status report with Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta.
The AG briefly remarked,
“I have also seen the clips; I was curious if there would be any in-house proceedings… In Bangalore, I spoke with members of the bar not just about the judge but other matters as well.” The SG added, “Sometimes we say things too; the reality is that we are all under public scrutiny now. We just need to be a bit more cautious. I don’t see any reason to prolong this issue.”
The Court noted that the Registrar General had provided a duly transcribed record of the hearings from June 6 and August 28, 2024. The Bench also observed that the report included a description of the proceedings.
“The Karnataka High Court has indicated that live streaming is conducted in accordance with the 2021 rules, and it is available on the High Court’s YouTube channel, which currently has over 100,000 subscribers,” the Court mentioned.
“After this Court took suo motu cognizance of these events, Justice V Srishananda presided over a session on September 21, where he addressed the bar. The report from the Registrar General includes what the judge stated on September 21, during which he mentioned that some comments were taken out of context, asserting they were unintentional and not meant to offend any segment of society. He has offered an apology,”
the Bench continued.
The Bench expressed,
“Considering the apology given by the High Court judge on September 21, 2024, in open court, we believe it is in the interest of justice and the dignity of the institution not to pursue these proceedings further.” They also stated that they consciously refrained from issuing a notice to the High Court judge regarding the matter.
“The extensive reach of social media has resulted in widespread reporting. Most High Courts have implemented live streaming or video conferencing, which became necessary during COVID-19 to enhance access to justice,”
the Court added.
The Court ultimately closed the suo motu proceedings it initiated on September 20.
Importantly, on September 20, the Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the controversial comments made by Justice V Srishananda, following the circulation of two viral videos on social media.
The Bench had requested a status report from the High Court Registrar and sought the assistance of AG R Venkataramani and SG Tushar Mehta regarding the issue. The videos depict Justice Srishananda making two controversial remarks during court proceedings.
Two videos of Justice Srishananda went viral on social media recently.
In one video, he referred to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in West Bengaluru as “Pakistan.” He stated, “If you go to that Mysuru Road flyover, every autorickshaw has ten people. It doesn’t apply here because the stretch from the Mysore flyover to the flower market in Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not India. This is the reality. Regardless of how strict the police officers may be, they will get beaten up there.”
He further commented, “In a foreign country, even if you are going at 40 km/h, the police will shift you to the slow lane. Here, you can break the law and get away with 304A. What’s the point? If you go to any private school today, you will see students riding scooters. The principals take no action, and neither do the parents. Autorickshaws are packed with 13, 14, and 15 students. Even after the incident where a van capsized and three small children died, no action was taken. The police are completely inactive. They are involved in lobbying. Most of these schools are run by… they will manage.”
In another, he humorously reprimanded a woman lawyer for responding to a question posed to the counsel for the opposing party, suggesting in jest that she seemed well-informed about the opposing party and might even disclose the color of his undergarments next.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the controversial remarks and requested a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General regarding the matter.
Following the Supreme Court’s attention to the issue, the judge issued an apology.
During today’s hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani requested that the case be discussed in chambers. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that the issue “may not be stretched,” given that the judge had apologized.
Ultimately, the court decided to close the case after making strong observations about the expected conduct of judges.
Case Title: IN RE: Remarks by High Court judge during Court Proceedings
READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON CONTROVERSIAL REMARKS OF KARNATAKA HC JUDGE
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
