NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Wednesday admonished Karnataka HC‘s Justice V Srishananda for his controversial reference to a Bengaluru locality as “Pakistan” and his misogynistic comment aimed at a woman lawyer, but spared him of further embarrassment by closing suo motu proceedings as he had tendered an open court apology.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy said, “We have seen the nature of the (judge’s) observations.One cannot call any part of the territory of India as Pakistan. That fundamentally is contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation.”
The bench was unequivocal in saying the observations were gratuitous and “should have been eschewed” and that Srishananda was being spared a notice only for the sake of the dignity of the judiciary.
Referring to a report on the judge’s remark submitted to SC by HC registrar general in consultation with its chief justice, SC said, “The report’s text would amply indicate the observations, which were made during the proceedings, were unrelated to the course of proceedings.”
Interestingly, the two top law officers, attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, diverged on what to do with Srishananda. Venkataramani did not seem to favour a swift closure and in his report, in response to the bench’s request for assistance on how to move forward, proposed an in-house inquiry to unravel the facts behind the controversy. If an in-house inquiry finds a judge unsuitable for holding the constitutional post, then the CJI may recommend the govt to remove him by bringing a motion before Parliament.
Mehta, however, opposed such a move and said since the judge had tendered an apology on September 21 in open court and expressed regret, a day after the SC took suo motu cognisance of his unwarranted observations, the best course would be to close proceedings.
Acknowledging SC’s concern over vitriolic comments on social media after Justice Srishananda’s observations went viral, Mehta said, “Social media cannot be controlled. The anonymity attached to social media makes it a very dangerous place.” Justices Chandrachud and Gavai agreed with Mehta.
While closing the proceedings, the bench said, “Perception of justice to every segment of society is as important as the rendition of justice as an objective fact. Since the HC judge is not party to the proceedings, we desist from making any further observations except expressing our serious concern about both the reference to the 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 that but the wider judicial system,” it added.