SC cautions courts against misogynistic comments, says no part of India can be called Pakistan

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Wednesday cautioned courts against making comments that may be construed as “misogynistic” or directed towards a particular “gender or community” and said no part of Indian territory can be called Pakistan.

The apex court’s strong observations came as it closed the suo motu proceedings over Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda’s alleged objectionable comments during court proceedings. The Supreme Court also noted that he had apologised for his observations during open court proceedings on September 21.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud observed that since Justice Srishananda was not a party to proceedings before it, “we desist from making any further observations save and except to express our serious concern about both the reference to gender and to a segment of the community”.

Also read: Democracy was also European concept: P Chidambaram flays TN Guv for ‘secularism not Indian’ quip

The top court on September 20 took suo motu cognisance of the judge’s comments against a woman lawyer during court proceedings in a case and his reference to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as “Pakistan” in another.

“Casual observations may well reflect a certain degree of individual bias particularly when they are likely to be perceived as being directed to a particular gender or community,” the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, said on Wednesday.

“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,” it said.

Referring to the text of a report submitted before it by the registrar general of the Karnataka High Court, the bench said it amply indicated that observations made in the course of proceedings there were unrelated to the course of proceedings and should have best been eschewed.

“The perception of justice to every segment of society is as important as the rendition of justice as an objective fact,” it said.

“Such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light, thereby impacting not only the court of the judge who express them but the wider judicial system,” it said.

After the bench dictated the order in the court room, Attorney General R Venkataramani referred to some messages on X about the observations and termed them “absolutely vitriolic”.

“Now you have seen the nature of the observations. 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 CJI observed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said social media can’t be controlled and the anonymity attached with it makes it “very dangerous”.

“But should I tell you, the answer to sunlight is more sunlight. Not to suppress what happens in the courts,” Justice Chandrachud observed, adding that the answer was not to close doors and shut everything down.

The bench said the prevalence and reach of social media has included wide reporting of court proceedings and most high courts in the country have now adopted rules for live streaming or for conduct of video-conferencing.

“Emerging as a necessity in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, video-conferencing and live streaming of proceedings has emerged as an important outreach facility of courts to promote access to justice,” it said.

The bench said all stakeholders in the judicial system, including the judges, lawyers and litigants particularly parties-in-person, have to be conscious that the reach of proceedings which takes place in the courts does not extend to merely those who are physically present but also to audiences.

“This places an added responsibility on judges and lawyers as well as litigants who appear in person to conduct proceedings conscious of the wider impact of casual observations on the community at large,” it said.

The bench said it was important that every judge should be aware of their own predispositions.

“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,” it said.

The bench said it was emphasising this point because it was necessary for every stakeholder to understand that the only values which must guide judicial decision making were those which were enshrined in the Constitution.

The top court noted that report of the high court’s registrar general deals with two proceedings before the judge, the first which took place on June 6 and the other on August 28.

It said after the apex court court had taken suo motu notice of these observations on September 20, the court presided over by Justice Srishananda had assembled on September 21 and the judge had read out an address in the open court in the presence of the Bar members.

The bench noted that the judge indicated during the September 21 proceedings that certain observations made by him were quoted out of context in social media and the observations were unintentional and were not intended to hurt the feelings of any segment of the society or any individual in particular.

It said the judge had also indicated that an apology was being tendered if any section of society or any individual has been directly or indirectly hurt by his comments.