The Supreme Court has rebuked a High Court judge for referring to any area of India as Pakistan

The Supreme Court, in a stern rebuke to Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda, made it clear that no region of India can be described as "Pakistan." This comes in response to a controversial remark made by Justice Srishananda during a recent hearing, where he referred to a Muslim-majority locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan." The apex court emphasized that such comments are fundamentally at odds with the territorial integrity of India, further underscoring that judges must be mindful of their words, especially in the era of live-streamed court proceedings where their remarks are accessible to a vast audience.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, who led the bench, noted that Justice Srishananda had since apologized for his comments and acknowledged that the remarks were made unintentionally. The CJI pointed out that while the judge had expressed regret, this incident served as a critical reminder that judges, like all public officials, must adapt their behavior to the modern age, where every word can have a profound impact beyond the confines of the courtroom.

The Supreme Court further remarked that it would not make any further observations, given that Justice Srishananda was not a party to the proceedings before them. However, the CJI stressed that the electronic age places greater responsibility on all members of the judiciary, calling for a modulation of conduct to reflect the seriousness of the office they hold. The court underlined that the answer to issues raised by such remarks is not to suppress transparency, but to allow more openness and sunlight into the functioning of the courts. 

Addressing concerns that this controversy could lead to calls for ending the livestreaming of court proceedings, the Supreme Court categorically stated that such incidents should not trigger a rollback of livestreaming. The CJI pointed out that livestreaming of court hearings, which became prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic, has now become an essential tool for making the judiciary more accessible and transparent. It allows people across the country to witness the workings of the courts in real time, thus fostering a deeper understanding of the justice system. The court added that this technology must be viewed as an important step towards ensuring justice is not only done but is seen to be done by the public.

The bench also highlighted the broader impact of judges' words in today's world, where court proceedings are no longer confined to the four walls of the courtroom. The court emphasized that judges, lawyers, and litigants must all be aware of the far-reaching effects of their statements, as these can influence public perception and have a significant bearing on society at large. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court spoke about the importance of judges remaining conscious of their personal predispositions. CJI Chandrachud observed that every individual, including judges, carries certain biases and preconceptions based on their life experiences, but the true essence of judicial integrity lies in overcoming these biases to deliver objective and fair justice. He stressed that casual remarks, particularly those directed at a gender, community, or religion, should be carefully avoided, as they can indicate an underlying bias that undermines the credibility of the judiciary.

The bench also referred to another incident involving Justice Srishananda, which had recently gone viral on social media. In a separate instance, the judge was heard making an inappropriate remark to a female advocate during a landlord-tenant dispute case, implying that she knew so much about the opposing party that she could even identify the color of their undergarments. This remark, along with his controversial comment on Bengaluru's Muslim-majority locality, sparked outrage on social media, with many calling for greater accountability and sensitivity from members of the judiciary.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court chose not to issue any formal notice to Justice Srishananda. The court noted that the judge had tendered an apology, and in the interest of preserving the dignity of the judiciary as an institution, they would refrain from pursuing further action. CJI Chandrachud remarked that, while the judge’s remarks were unfortunate, his apology in open court proceedings demonstrated an acknowledgment of the mistake, and it would not serve justice to prolong the matter.

The court also used the occasion to reiterate the importance of decorum and impartiality in the judiciary. Judges, the CJI said, must remain mindful of their public role and their words' impact on public trust in the judicial system. The judiciary must remain a beacon of fairness and integrity, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their background, can expect justice without prejudice or bias.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s handling of this issue signals its commitment to maintaining the highest standards of conduct within the judiciary, while also promoting transparency and public access to the workings of the courts. In an era where technology enables unprecedented levels of public engagement with the judicial process, the court made it clear that judges must rise to the occasion, exercising restraint and impartiality in their comments, both in and outside the courtroom.