New Delhi, Sept 25: The heart and soul of judging is the need to be impartial and fair and it is important that every judge is aware of his or her own predispositions, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday.
The apex court’s observation came while hearing a suo motu (on its own) matter over alleged objectionable comments made by Karnataka High Court judge V Srishananda during court proceedings.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said it is necessary for every stakeholder in the institution to understand that the only values that must guide judicial decision making are those that are enshrined in the Constitution.
“At the same time, it is important that every judge should be aware of their own predispositions. The heart and soul of judging is the need to be impartial and fair,” the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, said.
“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,” the court said.
The bench cautioned courts against making comments that may be construed as “misogynistic” or directed at a particular “gender or community”.
It closed the proceedings initiated over the alleged objectionable comments made by the judge, noting that he had tendered an apology during the open-court proceedings in the high court on September 21.
In its order dictated in the courtroom, the bench said the observations that it would make would be consistent with the need to preserve the judicial system’s dignity.
Referring to the social media’s reach and the live-streaming of court proceedings, the bench emphasised that this places an added responsibility on the judges, lawyers and litigants, who appear in courts in person, to conduct proceedings conscious of the wider impact of casual observations on the community at large.
“In this view of the matter, while we are inclined to close the proceedings, we have made these observations in the hope and expectation that the demands which have been placed on all stakeholders in the judicial system in the electronic age would elicit an appropriate modulation of behaviour, both on the part of the Bar and the bench in the future,” the court said.
Referring to a report filed before it by the registrar general of the Karnataka High Court, the bench noted that the high court had notified the rules on live-streaming and recording of court proceedings with effect from January 1, 2022.
Attorney General R Venkataramani said he was wondering whether the matter taken up by the top court could be an in-house procedure.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he does not see any reason to “stretch it” after the high court judge himself gave a clarification.
“This is my personal view,” Mehta said, adding, “Now, we are under the gaze of the public and on both sides, we have to be a little careful.”
The apex court had, on September 20, requested both the top law officers to assist it in the matter.
It had taken suo-motu cognisance of the high court judge’s alleged objectionable comments against a woman lawyer during the court proceedings in a case and his reference to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as “Pakistan” in another.
The top court had also asked the high court’s registrar general to submit a report before it after seeking administrative directions of the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court with regard to the subject matter.
In video clips that went viral on social media, Justice Srishananda was seen reprimanding a woman lawyer and he also reportedly made some objectionable comments when she intervened in an ongoing hearing.
In another case related to a landlord-tenant dispute, the judge referred to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as “Pakistan”. (PTI)
