'You Can't Call Any Part Of India As "Pakistan"' : Supreme Court Disapproves Of Karnataka HC Judge's Comments, Accepts Apology

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 25 ) cautioned that judges should avoid casual comments which are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community.

"You can't call any part of the territory of India as "Pakistan". It is fundamentally contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud orally said expressing concerns about the remarks made by a Judge of the Karnataka High Court who called a particular locality of Bengaluru as "Pakistan".

A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the suo motu matter relating to the viral clippings of the controversial comments made by Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court during hearings. 

In one video, he was seen referring to an area in Bangalore, which is apparently Muslim-dominated, as "Pakistan". In another video, he was seen making objectionable remarks to a woman advocate in a matrimonial dispute.

The Court today decided not to pursue the matter further in the light of the regret expressed by the Judge in the open court after the Supreme Court's intervention over the viral video clips. At the same time, the Court made several significant observations on the need for the judges to express restraint, particularly in the age of electronic media where there is wide reportage of the court proceedings.

"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," the bench observed in the order.

The Court noted from the report of the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court that the observations made by Justice Srishananda were unrelated to the subject matter. 

Saying that such comments were best eschewed, the Court recorded its disapproval of the comments made by the judge against a gender and a community.

"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 behaviour both on the part of the bench as well as the bar," the bench observed.

Adjudication must be perceived to be impartial and fair

The bench emphasised in its order that the heart and soul of adjudication are impartiality and fairness. Judges must be guided by only the values which are enshrined in the Constitution, the bench reminded.

"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 emphasise 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."

AG and SG suggest that the matter be closed accepting judge's apology

When the suo motu proceedings commenced, the CJI told the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that the report from the Karnataka High Court was received regarding the incident. The CJI handed over the report to the AG and the SG for their perusal.