The judiciary is romanticised as the last resort for a disenfranchised citizen. But what happens if the constituents of the judicial institutions are themselves problematic? Recently, remarks made by Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda have drawn significant attention and criticism, prompting the Supreme Court of India to take suo motu cognisance of the issue.
During a hearing related to a landlord-tenant dispute, Justice Srishananda referred to a Muslim-majority locality in Bengaluru as “Pakistan”, a comment that has been widely condemned for undermining the territorial integrity of India. Additionally, he made a misogynistic remark directed at a woman lawyer, suggesting she might know the colour of the opposing party’s undergarments.
These comments, captured in viral video clips, led to public outrage and calls for accountability within the judiciary. In response, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasised the need for judicial decorum, particularly in the age of social media where court proceedings are live-streamed and scrutinised. The Court sought a report from the Karnataka High Court regarding the incident and highlighted the importance of judges being mindful of their language to avoid casual remarks that could reflect personal biases.
In the aftermath of the incident, Justice Srishanada issued a public apology and expressed regrets. But can forced apologies ensure the negation of deeply held biases from future occurrences? There could also be a more systematic issue of judicial bias which forced apologies in a specific blown-up do not address. Meanwhile, following Justice Srishananda’s public apology for his comments, the Supreme Court decided to close the proceedings, while reiterating the necessity for judges to maintain impartiality and fairness in their conduct.
Jargon
- Suo Motu: A Latin term meaning ‘on its own motion’, used when a court takes action without a formal request from any party involved.
- Misogynistic: Referring to attitudes, comments, or behaviours that are prejudiced against women, often implying a belief in the superiority of men.
- Gratuitous remarks: Comments made that are unnecessary or unwarranted, often leading to controversy or misunderstanding.
- Predispositions: Inherent biases or inclinations that individuals may have based on their experiences, which can affect their judgement and behaviour.
Viewpoints 💭
- Justice Srishananda’s remarks reflect inherent biases and systemic issues within the judiciary, particularly against marginalised communities and women.
- The judge’s reference to a Muslim-majority area as ‘Pakistan’ perpetuates harmful stereotypes and contributes to the dehumanisation of Indian Muslims.
- Misogynistic comments towards a woman lawyer highlight the ongoing struggle for gender equality within the legal profession.
- The incident underscores the need for comprehensive judicial sensitivity training to address biases and ensure fair treatment for all communities.
- The Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary to uphold judicial accountability and maintain public trust in the judiciary.
- The left views Justice Srishananda’s remarks as symptomatic of deeper prejudices within the judiciary, advocating for systemic reforms and sensitivity training to address these biases, while the right perceives the comments as isolated incidents, emphasising the importance of context and the judge’s overall integrity.
- From the left’s perspective, referring to a Muslim-majority area as ‘Pakistan’ is a serious issue that perpetuates negative stereotypes and marginalises Indian Muslims, whereas the right considers the judge’s apology adequate and stresses the potential for misinterpretation of his comments on social media.
- The left highlights the misogynistic nature of the judge’s comments towards a woman lawyer as indicative of the broader gender inequality in the legal profession, calling for gender sensitisation training, while the right focuses on the need for judicial decorum without overburdening judges with excessive scrutiny.
- The left argues that the Supreme Court’s intervention is essential for maintaining judicial accountability and public trust, whereas the right warns against undermining judicial independence and authority through excessive intervention and scrutiny.
- The left supports the continuation of live streaming to ensure transparency and public access to justice, despite the risks of misinterpretation, while the right advocates for temporary halts or stricter regulations on live streaming to protect the judiciary’s image and prevent misuse of courtroom proceedings.
- Justice Srishananda’s comments were taken out of context and do not reflect his overall judicial integrity and competence.
- The judge’s apology should be sufficient to close the matter, as further actions might undermine the judiciary’s authority and independence.
- Calls for halting live streaming of court proceedings are justified to prevent misinterpretation and misuse of judicial comments on social media.
- The emphasis on judicial decorum is crucial, but it should not lead to excessive scrutiny that hampers judges’ ability to speak candidly in court.
Prominent Voices 📣
- Indira Jaising (Senior Advocate and Human Rights Activist): Called for the Chief Justice to take action against the judge and emphasised the need for gender sensitisation training.
1
2 - Prashant Bhushan (Supreme Court Lawyer and Activist): Described the judge’s remarks as objectionable and indicative of a mindset inconsistent with constitutional values. 3
- Sanjoy Ghose (Senior Advocate): Condemned the judge’s comments and stressed the importance of maintaining judicial decorum.
4
3 - Nizam Pasha (Supreme Court Lawyer): Highlighted the concern of communal biases among judges and the need for systemic changes to ensure minority representation. 3
- All India Lawyers Association For Justice (Legal Advocacy Group): Condemned the judge’s behavior, stating it undermines public faith in the judiciary and called for responsible conduct from judges.
5
6
- R Venkataramani (Attorney General of India): Suggested that the matter could be handled as an in-house proceeding rather than through formal action and highlighted the importance of transparency in court proceedings.
7
8
- Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General of India): Supported the closure of proceedings due to the judge’s apology and noted the uncontrollable nature of social media. 10
- Arvind Kamath (Additional Solicitor General): The existing mechanisms in the High Court are sufficient to address complaints about video misuse, and live-streaming is beneficial for judicial transparency.
11
- Vivek Subba Reddy (President of the Advocates Association of Bengaluru): Expressed that the judge did not intend to hurt anyone and acknowledged his good standing as a judge while urging for more careful statements.
- Advocates Association of Bengaluru: Called for restrictions on the use of live-streamed court proceedings on social media.
Sources 📚
