MIND YOUR Ps & Q YOUR HONOURS

In the day & age, when live coverage of Supreme Court (SC) & High Court (HC) proceedings on digital platforms has brought about much needed transparency and understanding of legal proceedings, the SC is well advised to suo moto take upon itself, the responsibility of setting guideline to curb the varied off the cuff remarks (mostly ill advised) of presiding judges. Is this a recent phenomena, No Sir, not at all.

The dynamic shift in recent times, can be blamed on the proliferation of social media platforms, where on-spot reporting from courts and smartly edited videos of court misdemeanor, assumes virality. This transparency and awareness of the people at large, questions the very foundation of casual, ill intended, caustic remarks by judges of all hue & different courts, across the country.

A 5 judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice DY Chandrachur, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, took suo moto cognizance of Karnataka HC judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, comments on 20th September. 2 viral videos of Justice Srishananda, one terming a Muslim dominated area in Bangalore as “Pakistan” and the other denigrating women – were reason enough for the 5 judge bench to direct the Attorney General to make some basic guidelines and seek a report from the Secretary General of Karnataka High Court. Commenting on this matter, the CJI said, “In the age of social media users, we are closely watched, and we have to act accordingly”. Had these comments been made by a political leader –after an initial hue & cry, the matter would have been erased from public memory. But coming from a sitting Judge of the HC –“Muslim dominated area, being termed Pakistan”– demonstrates a definitive tilt towards an emerging ideological orientation, which strikes at the very core of the basic tents of the Constitution. Clubbed with disrespectful & perverse comment about women, this spells doom for an institution, which is expected to be the torch bearer, in this age of confused & misplaced political cauldron. If the institution entrusted with the belief of being just & fair is seen a biased and judgmental, then where is Justice in India.

Numerous remarks/comments of judges of the lower courts, HC, can be quoted to supplement the growing trend of deemed partisan mindset of the Honourables’.

The resignation of a sitting Calcutta HC judge, Abhijit Gangopadhya (formerly prefixed with Justice) just before LS polls, to contest elections, was not a proud moment for Judicial Ethics. Gangopadhya, whilst addressing a press conference, claimed, “I have all along been influenced with RSS ideology. I belong to a thought process which believes in Nationalistic, Culturally Predominant Bharat”. These comments were made a day after (former Justice) Gangopadhya’s resignation was accepted. The question, which hence stares the entire judiciary – if the like of Gangopadhya were ideological influenced during their judgeship – are such judges, impartial, fair, unbiased, ethical and free from predominant ideological beliefs? Are the judgement pronounced by such Ideological driven judges fair? And shouldn’t such judgements be now challenged and overwritten, because they were passed by a ‘driven’ Judge?

Sample this further… Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad HC, expunged Bareilly’s Additional Sessions Judge, Ravi Kumar Diwark’s comments on 2010 Bareilly Riots case order, stating, “unwarranted remarks, containing political overtones and personal views”.

What did additional sessions judge, write in his judgement of Bareilly Riots case? Something which only an astute, diehard, BJP supporter could have vouched for - “… the head of power should be a religious person because the life of a religious person is not of enjoyment but sacrifice and dedication. An example is Mahant Baba Sri Yogi Adiyanath ji…. If a religious person sits on the seat of power, it gives very good results, as propounded by the philosopher Plato…” These remarks were made three months prior to LS election of 2024. Further note, what the additional sessions judge wrote, “An atmosphere of fear prevails in my family …. my mother remains worried about my safety … Maulana Tuaqeer Raza Khaw (the accused) has attempted to incite riots in Bareilly… he also made comments against PM Shri Narendra Modi, which my wife heard and said, if a person can say such derogatory things about PM, he can do anything”.

I am not posing a rhetorical question. But, pray tell me, honorable judges & judicial functionaries of India – does Bharat deserve this, in it’s Amrit Kaal?

It’s not as thought, the SC is unaware of the fallacies emerging out of the proliferation of digital /social media. Nor does it tend to ignore the compounding impact & widespread propagational power of social media combined with live streaming of court proceedings.

Recently, an esteemed judge of the Punjab & Haryana HC, passed an order “…Eventually if you look at the matter in a larger perspective, even the SC is not supreme, the HC is not supreme, the Munshiff is also not supreme. The supremacy is of the Constitution. We are all below the Constitution. Our task is to interpret the Constitution.” These comments of the HC judge were in response to a bail application stay order by the SC. And clearly stood in strong critique of the SC order. Expunging these remarks on 7th Aug 2024, a special bench comprising of 5 judges, including CJI, DY Chandrachur, stated, “In an age where there is widespread reporting of proceeding of the court, particularly in context of live streaming, which is intended to provide access to justice to the litigants of the courts, its all the more necessary for the judges to exercise due restraint or responsibility on the observations made in the Court in the course of proceedings.”

Today, the entire judiciary is faced with an existential cum rhetorical question – how & who shall the bell the Honourables’, so as to guide them to exercise restrain, propriety, congeniality & above all, impartiality? Justice being served is half baked, if its not, seen as been served – its an oft repeated idiom. But highly relevant in times such as now, where post truth, redefinition/reidentification of facts & figures, rechristening of dates events & reorientation of mass belief – is the ultimate reality. Is the judiciary, up to this daunting challenge of maintaining dignified balance?

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE AUTHOR ARE PERSONAL

Ajay Kumar The writer is Political Commentator & Journalist