Embarrassing Moments Of 2024 When Judges Sparked Controversies With Unthoughtful Comments

Sober, stoic and reticent to an extent- this is the cliched image which is often associated with judges. Judges are traditionally thought of as being socially and politically aloof, restrained in public utterances and interactions, with their judicial power manifesting only through the boldness of their judgments."Work like a horse and live like a hermit" -this is the adage which judges are expected to follow.

Recently, Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of judges being active on social media. "Judicial officers should not go to Facebook," Justice Nagarathna said, underscoring that a judge has to sacrifice several liberties enjoyed by the common people.

But we know that the stereotype of an aloof judge, like most stereotypes, does not present an accurate picture. We have seen judges with their taste for flamboyance and love for the limelight. Judges, like all individuals, bring their own peculiarities and uniqueness to their role. David Pannick's legendary book "Judges" presents a vivid account of the colourful habits and idiosyncracies of several judges. Yet, there was a redline that judges were expected to never cross, even with their personal frailties and eccentricities.

The advent of social media and live-streaming have ensured that the judiciary is always under the public gaze. Therefore, even the occasional moments of 'Freudian Slip', when judges knowingly or unknowingly drop their guard to ventilate their inner thoughts- which sometimes reveal unconscious biases or ill-informed opinions- get captured and amplified across social media.

The year 2024 had certain ignoble moments when judges brought disrepute to the judiciary with their thoughtless remarks. It is quite unprecedented that the Supreme Court had to suo motu intervene four times - three times judicially and once administratively- to address inappropriate utterances made by High Court judges in a single year. Let us have a recap of those moments.

Abhijit Gangopadhyay, former Calcutta High Court judge

Abhijit Gangopadhyay caused a shocker in March 2024 when he announced his resignation as a judge of the Calcutta High Court to join the Bharatiya Janata Party. In a press conference, he disclosed "I approached the BJP, the BJP also approached me" while he was a judge and showered praises on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His sudden resignation and the prompt joining of a political party raised serious doubts about his judicial independence, especially so since he had passed several adverse orders against BJP's political opponents. Even as a judge, Gangopadhyay was no stranger to controversies. The Supreme Court has judicially reprimanded him for giving press interviews regarding a pending case which was politically sensitive. Casting doubts on his independence, the Supreme Court ordered the shifting of the case from Gangopadhyay's bench.

In an act of grave indiscipline as a judge, Gangopadhyay openly defined a division bench's order, and accused the judges who stayed his order of political bias. This embarrassing moment forced the Supreme Court to make its first suo motu intervention of 2024 (In Re: Orders Of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and ancillary issues). Five senior judges of the Supreme Court held a special sitting on a Saturday to stay the unusual order passed by Gangopadhyay.

He also faced the reprimand of the Election Commission for "low-level" misogynistic words used against West Bengal Chief Minister.

Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay: Calcutta High Court Judge With Penchant For Courting Controversies

When a High Court judge attacked the Supreme Court

In July 2024, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an unusual order, making several uncharitable comments against the Supreme Court for staying a contempt proceedings initiated by him.

He observed in the order that there is "a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more 'Supreme' than it actually is and to presume a High Court to be lesser 'High' than it constitutionally". On the very same day when the order was uploaded, the Supreme Court took a suo motu case against the High Court's order (In Re : Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court Order Dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues).

"We are pained by the observations made by the single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court," the then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, while presiding over a 5-judge bench to hear the suo motu case.

While passing an order to expunge the remarks of the High Court judge, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of judicial discipline and respect for the hierarchy of courts.

"Judicial discipline in the context of the hierarchical nature of the judicial system is intended to preserve the dignity of all institutions, whether at the level of District, High Court or Supreme Court... Every Judge is bound by the discipline which the hierarchical nature of the judicial system imposes within the system. No Judge is personally affected by the orders passed either by the Division Bench of the High Court or, as the case may be, by the Supreme Court," the Court observed.

During the hearing, the Court also took note of a viral video clip showing the High Court judge making certain unsavoury comments. In this context, the Court advised a word of caution. 

"In an age where there is widespread reporting of every proceeding which takes place in the Court, particularly in the context of live streaming which is intended to provide access to justice to citizens, it is all the more necessary that Judges should exercise due restraint and responsibility in the observations which are made in the course of proceedings. Observations of the nature which have proliferated in the video of the proceedings of the Single Judge can cause incalculable harm to the sanctity of the judicial process. We hope and trust that circumspection shall be exercised in the future."

When a High Court judge revealed communal and gender biases

In September 2024, video clips of Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court became viral on social media. In one clip, he was seen describing a minority-dominated area of Bangalore as "Pakistan". In another clip, he was seen making inappropriate comments towards a woman advocate.

After the clips created a huge furore, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court(In Re : Remarks by High Court Judge during Court proceedings). After the Supreme Court's intervention, Justice Srishananda expressed regrets for his comments in open court proceedings.  

While closing the suo motu proceedings in the light of the apology expressed by the judge, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier observations on the importance of judicial restraint, especially in the of social media, since the comments travel far and wide beyond the court room. The Court stated that the judges should ensure that their comments do not cause prejudice to any community or gender.

"Casual observations often reflect 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, for that matter, prejudicial to any segment of our society."

 "Judges need to be conscious of the fact that each individual bears a certain degree of accumulated predispositions, based on their experiences of life. Some may be early experiences. Others are gained later. Every Judge should be aware of those predispositions. The heart and soul of judging lies in the need to be impartial and fair. Intrinsic to that process is the need for every Judge to be aware of their own predispositions. Awareness of these predispositions is the first step in excluding them in the decision making process. It is on the basis of that awareness that a judge can be faithful to the fundamental obligation to render objective and fair justice. Every stake holder in the administration of justice has to understand that the only values which must guide decision making are those which are enshrined in the Constitution of India."

Importantly, the Court also rejected a demand made to stop the live-streaming of hearings, saying "more sunlight is the answer."

"Live- streaming has provided fresh sunlight. The answer to sunlight is to provide more sunlight. All stake holders in the judicial system, including judges, lawyers and parties in person, have to be conscious of the fact that the reach of judicial proceedings extends beyond those who are physically present. The reach of judicial hearings extends to audiences well beyond the physical precincts of the court. This places an added responsibility on judges and lawyers as well as litigants who appear in person to conduct the proceedings conscious of the wide and immediate impact of casual observations on the community at large."

Allahabad HC judge's VHP speech

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court sparked outrage with his comments targeting the Muslim community during a speech delivered at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. In his speech, Justice Yadav used a derogatory slur and asserted that the country would be ruled as per the wishes of the majority. 

 The Supreme Court, on its administrative side, took notice of the speech and sought its particulars from the Allahabad High Court. Justice Yadav reportedly appeared before the Supreme Court collegium on being summoned. Impeachment motions have also been moved in both houses of the Parliament against Justice Yadav.