“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,” was what the Supreme Court observed on 25th September to the remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court had referred to the Muslim-majority Gori Palya area in Bengaluru as “Pakistan” and passed a misogynistic statement during a hearing on 28th August after which he was rebuked by the 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy. Notably, the apex court further stressed the importance of decorum and restraint from judges in the digital age when court proceedings are live-streamed and observed.
The court highlighted, “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 court clarified that such comments could be interpreted unfavourably which would affect the court of the judge as well as the larger legal system. Furthermore, the highest court closed the proceedings while it expected and hoped that “the demands which have been placed on all stakeholders in the judicial system in the electronic age would elicit appropriate modulation of behaviour both on the part of the bench as well as the bar.”
The court further noted, “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 based on 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 every stakeholder must understand that the only values which must guide judicial decision-making are those which are enshrined in the Constitution of India.” The case was closed after the judge apologised.
The Supreme Court observations are certainly refreshing given that there have been times when the observations and oral remarks made by judges have exceeded the judicial brief and travelled to the realm of prejudicial. However, while the High Court judge has offered his apology after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of his remarks, one has to wonder who will impress upon the highest court in the country, that oral observations that have in the past emanated from the Supreme Court in certain cases have been prejudicial, biased and caustic.
Supreme Court’s apathy towards Nupur Sharma
On one hand, the Supreme Court cautioned judges to refrain from making inane remarks that are detrimental to any community, on the other, some of its venerated justices indulged in the same in the past when they blamed former Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma for provoking Muslims, holding her accountable for the brutal murder of Kanhaiya Lal – beheaded by jihadis for supporting her.
Nupur Sharma submitted a petition with the Supreme Court in 2022, requesting that all of the First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against her from various states be transferred to Delhi for additional inquiry as her life was constantly under threat. Her request was, however, met with a verbal assault and shocking responses from the justices, who now want to appear impartial and just.
Justice Surya Kant then referred to her as arrogant as the supreme court, which swears by the constitution and stands for everyone’s right to free speech, held her “loose tongue” responsible for the violence perpetrated by the radicals in the nation. The court wanted her to apologize to the country and mocked, “They must be red carpeting you,” when informed that she was cooperating with the inquiry.
“Sometimes the power goes into the head. People think that I have backup and say anything,” Justice Surya Kant further slammed her while Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala alleged, “The statement of Nupur Sharma was responsible for the unfortunate killing in Udaipur.” The justices who should have stood with the aggrieved party opted to condemn her and tacitly side with the Islamists who were wreaking havoc on the streets.
Nupur Sharma was regularly receiving death, beheading and rape threat by Islamists and many Hindus who supported her were mercilessly killed by the jihadis after she responded to a fellow panellist Tasleem Ahmed Rehmani’s disparaging statements against the Shivling and Hindu faith during a debate show.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court preferred to consider the matter in isolation and made no notice of Tasleem Rehmani’s provocation. The bench resolved to place all the onus of occurrence on Nupur Sharma and asked, “What is her business to make these remarks,” and added, “She should have gone to the TV and apologised to the entire nation,” when the bench was told that she had already withdrawn her comments and apologised for them.
It is worthy to be mentioned here that Nupur Sharma did not make hateful remarks, as insinuated by the judges of the Supreme Court. Sharma only mentioned what has been written in the Hadits – as affirmed by several Islamic scholars across the world. In fact, the very same assertions about Prophet Mohammad have been made by Zakir Naik himself – who is a fugitive but is considered an Islamic authority by the Muslims.
The court also ruled that since Nupur Sharma mentioned “if she had hurt any sentiments,” her withdrawal was conditional and too late. Her apology, in contrast to Justice V Srishanandan’s, was characterized as being too little, too late and was treated further with disdain. “The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” Justice Surya Kant pronounced.
Moreover, Nupur Sharma’s attempt to safeguard herself from the fanatics was viewed as an act of arrogance. “The petition smacks of her arrogance, that the magistrates of the country are too small for her,” the Supreme Court conveyed and reiterated, “If you are a spokesperson of a party, it is not a license to say things like this.” In simple terms, Nupur Sharma was found guilty of blasphemy by the Supreme Court of India, thereby approving the calls from the Islamists for her execution and murder.
The lofty rhetoric about being unbiased and diligent in the age of media scrutiny was all but forgotten in the sensitive case of Nupur Sharma when the victim was portrayed as the offender by the highest court that yielded before the Islamic zealots. An innocent woman was almost thrown to the wolves without a second thought by the temple of justice which suddenly seemed quite concerned about the judiciary’s reputation and projection in the media as well as adhering to the Constitution.
The court remarked, “All parties, judges, lawyers and litigants must be aware that proceedings reach audiences who are well beyond the physical precincts of the court and thus all must be aware of the wider impact of observations on the community at large. As judges, we are conscious of the fact that each individual has a set of predispositions based on early or later experiences of life,” during the recent hearing. Unfortunately, the sentiment seemed to have been lost in relation to Nupur Sharma and hence the distressed woman endured such a harsh reaction from the court.
Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda apologised
The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud informed that Justice V Srishanandan had apologised for his remarks after the Supreme Court intervened over the viral video recordings, and decided not to pursue the case any further. The court previously underlined its dissatisfaction with the judge’s remarks that were directed towards a particular gender and community, stating that such remarks should be avoided.
The bench pointed out, “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.”
The bench observed that the judge’s declaration of remorse, which was made in open court on 21st September following the Supreme Court’s suo motu cognizance, was taken from the Report of the Registrar General of the High Court. “You can’t call any part of the territory of India as Pakistan. It is fundamentally contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down,” CJI DY Chandrachud stated earlier during the hearing.
The petition brought before the court on a suo motu basis concerned the widely circulated recordings of Justice V Srishanandan of the Karnataka High Court’s contentious remarks during a landlord-tenant conflict. He was seen calling a Muslim-dominated region of Bangalore “Pakistan” in one video and offensive comments to a woman advocate in a matrimonial dispute in another video. He claimed that she seemed to know a lot about the other side and that might even be able to tell the colour of their undergarments.
On 20th September, the Supreme Court sought a report from the Karnataka High Court’s Registrar General after the footage went viral online. The bench, however, acknowledged the high court judge’s “contrite apology” and declared that the suo motu matter would be closed in the “interest of justice” and “institutional respect” for the high court.
The court concluded, “The learned judge has indicated that certain observations made by him were quoted out of context in the social context, the observations were unintentional and were not intended to hurt any individual or section of the society, 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 the open court proceeding, we consider in the interest of justice and dignity of justice to not pursue the proceedings further.”
The Supreme Court’s observation ensuring that judges be mindful of their oral observations is a welcome one. It is indeed the need of the hour to ensure judges act responsibly when dealing with sensitive cases, however, the highest court of India would also do well to remind its own judges that what is good for the goose, has to be good for the gander. It is time that Supreme Court judges implement the very observations that they have passed in the case of the High Court judge making unsavoury oral observations.
