You can't call any part of country Pakistan: SC on HC judge’s remark

Taking strong exception to Karnataka High Court V Srishananda’s controversial remarks that a particular Muslim-dominated area of Bengaluru was in Pakistan, the Supreme Court on Wednesday cautioned judges against making casual comments reflecting their personal biases.

"We can't call any part of the territory of India as Pakistan because that’s fundamentally contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation," a five-judge Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said.

The Bench – which had on September 20 taken suo motu cognisance of the judge’s controversial remarks – however, closed the proceedings on the issue as Justice Srishananda had apologised in open court on September 21, even as it cautioned judges against casual comments reflecting their personal biases.

"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," said the Bench which also included Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

"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," it added.

"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," said the CJI.

Noting that Justice Srishananda was not a party to proceedings before it, the Bench said, "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."

Apart from referring to a particular area in Bengaluru as being in Pakistan, Justice Srishananda had also made certain gender insensitive remarks to a woman lawyer.

After perusing the Karnataka High Court Registrar General’s report, the Bench said the observations in question 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. Such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light, thereby impacting not only the court of the judge who expresses them but the wider judicial system," it noted.

As Attorney General R Venkataraman and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed concern about vitriolic comments made in anonymity on social media, the CJI said, “The answer to sunlight is more sunlight…Not to suppress what happens in courts."

Describing video-conferencing and live-streaming of proceedings as an important outreach facility of courts to promote access to justice, the Bench said all stakeholders in the judicial system -- the judges, lawyers and litigants, particularly parties-in-person, should be conscious of the wider impact of casual remarks on the community at large as the reach of the proceedings was not limited to those physically present in courts but also to audiences outside.