Can't call any part of India as Pakistan: Supreme Court objects to remark by Justice V Srishananda

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took strong exception to the controversial statement made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda, who referred to a particular locality in Bengaluru as 'Pakistan' [IN RE: Remarks by High Court judge during Court Proceedings]..A five-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy issued a strong note of caution for judges and lawyers, saying that they should take care to ensure that their personal biases are not reflected while discharging their duties."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 Bench said.Nevertheless, the Bench closed the suo motu proceedings initiated by it in relation to the matter after taking note of the fact that the High Court judge had apologised for his statements..However, the apex court did not hold back from voicing its concerns over such statements. "Casual observations often reflect 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, for that matter, prejudicial to any segment of our society ... The perception of justice to every segment of society is as important as the rendition of justice as an objective fact ... 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. Such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light thereby impacting not only the court of the Judge who expressed them, but the judicial system as well," the top court said.In the era of social media, any observations by judges can have a wide impact, and thus, judges should be aware of their predispositions so that they can deliver justice impartially, the Court said."The prevalence and reach of social media encompasses the live reporting of court proceedings ... video conferencing, together with live streaming of proceedings, has emerged as an important outreach facility for courts to promote access to justice. Live streaming has provided fresh sunlight. The answer to sunlight is to provide more sunlight. All stake holders in the judicial system, including judges, lawyers and parties in person, have to be conscious of the fact that the reach of judicial proceedings extends beyond those who are physically present. The reach of judicial hearings extends to audiences well beyond the physical precincts of the court." "This places an added responsibility on judges and lawyers as well as litigants who appear in person to conduct the proceedings conscious of the wide and immediate impact of casual observations on the community at large. Judges need to be conscious of the fact that each individual bears a certain degree of accumulated predispositions, based on their experiences of life ... Every Judge should be aware of those predispositions. The heart and soul of judging lies in the need to be impartial and fair. Intrinsic to that process is the need for every Judge to be aware of their own predispositions. Awareness of these predispositions is the f irst step in excluding them in the decision making process. It is on the basis of that awareness that a judge can be faithful to the fundamental obligation to render objective and fair justice."It is important for all stakeholders to understand that the only values which must guide judicial decision-making are the ones in the Constitution, the Bench underscored..Two videos of Justice Srishananda had gone viral on social media.In one video, he was seen referring to a Muslim dominated sub-locality in West Bengaluru as 'Pakistan'.In another video, he was seen reprimanding a woman lawyer for answering a question put to the counsel for the opposite party.The judge was seen telling the woman lawyer in jest that she seems to know a lot about the opposite party, and that she might even reveal the colour of his undergarments next.The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the controversial comments made by the judge and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General on the sameAfter the top court took cognisance of the same, the judge apologised..When the case was heard today, Attorney General R Venkataramani requested that the matter could be taken by an in house procedure.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the matter "may not be stretched" considering the fact that the judge has apologised. The Court eventually proceeded to close the case after making strong observations on how judges should conduct themselves..[Read order]