A Bench of the Supreme Court has shut the contempt proceedings initiated against Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court after he tendered a public apology for some contentious remarks during courtroom hearings. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, who headed the five-judge bench, said that its decision was in the interest of justice, intending to maintain the dignity of the judiciary.
Justice Srishananda had recently stirred controversy during a hearing in the case relating to a dispute between a landlord and a tenant by referring to the Muslim majority area in Bengaluru as “Pakistan,” and he also made misogynistic remarks against a woman lawyer. Those comments had gone viral on social media, following which the Supreme Court had asked the Karnataka High Court for a report, and it responded shortly after.
Chief Justice Chandrachud warned sternly that no one could refer to any part of the territory of India as ‘Pakistan,’ adding that such remarks denigrate the territorial integrity of the nation. Pressing for transparency in court proceedings, he said, “Reaction to improper remarks cannot be to mute the discussion.”
The Supreme Court had taken up the case suo motu, as it needed to lay down clearer guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their public comments. During the hearing on September 20, the bench showed its apprehension about the possibility of personal biases through loose shots, particularly about certain genders or communities. “We must avoid making comments which are patriarchal or misogynistic,” said Chief Justice Chandrachud, emphasizing the decorum in comments that is required from the judges.
In view of the magnifying role that social media plays, the Supreme Court stressed the dire need to ensure that judges’ remarks are in tune with the required ideals of judicial conduct while discharging duties in courts of law.
Videos of Justice Srishananda uttering the comments have gone viral on social media. He once termed a Muslim-dominated area as “Pakistan.” On another occasion, he commented on the “knowledge of the opposition party” that a woman lawyer may even point out the color of the underarms.
