Karnataka HC Judge’s Controversial Remarks Case: SC Closes Proceedings and Accepts Apology

In relation to the Supreme Court’s suo motu cognizance of controversial remarks made by Karnataka High Court (HC) Judge Justice V. Srishananda, the top Court today (September 25, 2024) cautioned that judges should avoid casual comments that are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community. The Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice BR Gavai was hearing the suo motu case. While expressing concerns over the ‘Pakistani’ comment, CJI orally remarked, “You can't call any part of the territory of India as "Pakistan". It is fundamentally contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation.” After hearing the contentions, the SC bench observed, “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.” It added, “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 behavior both on the part of the bench as well as the bar.” 

Moreover, the SC said that adjudication should be perceived to be impartial and fair. The order reads, “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 emphasize 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.” Considering the apology submitted by the High Court judge, the bench noted, “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.” Along with this, the CJI said that the controversy cannot be a reason to shut down the live-streaming of court proceedings. He said,  “Answer to sunlight is more sunlight. Not to suppress what happens in the Court. This is a very important reminder to everyone. The answer is not to close doors and shut down.”