Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 866
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, SANJIV KHANNA, B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings
Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No 9 of 2024
Decided on : 25-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : By Courts Motion
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Judicial remarks made during live proceedings must be carefully considered to avoid bias and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Headnote:
Judicial Conduct - High Court Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Karnataka Rent Act - The court emphasized the importance of judicial decorum and the impact of casual remarks made during live-streamed proceedings, highlighting the need for judges to be aware of their biases and the potential implications of their comments.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed comments made by a High Court judge during live-streamed proceedings that were perceived as inappropriate and circulated on social media, leading to a suo motu inquiry into the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the judge's apology for any unintended offense caused by his remarks and emphasized the need for judges to maintain decorum and be mindful of their comments in the context of live-streamed proceedings.
Issues: Whether the comments made by the judge during court proceedings were inappropriate and how they affect the perception of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: Judges must be aware of their biases and the potential impact of their remarks, especially in live-streamed proceedings, to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and ensure fair justice.
Result: The court concluded the proceedings with observations on the need for judicial decorum and awareness of the implications of casual remarks.
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1. The Court was apprised of reports circulating in the media pertaining to comments attributed to Justice V Srishananda, a Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, during the conduct of judicial proceedings.
2. In this backdrop, a suo motu proceeding has been registered.
3. On 20 September 2024, the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka was requested to submit a report after seeking administrative directions of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka in regard to the subject matter of the suo motu proceedings.
4. A report dated 23 September 2024 has been submitted by Mr K S Bharath Kumar, Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka, in pursuance of the above directions.
5. The report deals with two proceedings before the Judge, the first of which took place on 6 June 2024 and the second on 28 August 2024. The Registrar General has submitted a transcript, duly translated as a part of his report, bearing in mind the fact that some part of the dialogue in the Court had taken place in Kannada. The report, insofar as the proceedings of 6 June 2024 are concerned, is set out below:
“The Proceedings on 6th June 2024,
3. On the aforesaid date, in Court Hall No.26, in the court presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, the proceedings of Criminal Revision Petition No.634 of 2021 filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in M.V. Krishnappa v. M. Srinivas were conducted. Therein the petitioner had prayed to set aside the judgment and order dated 15th February 2021 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Criminal Application No.26 of 2020 confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25th February 2020 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Criminal Case No.8381 of 2018 convicting the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and imposing sentence of six months simple imprisonment to the accused and in default to pay Rs.25,10,000/-towards fine.
3.1 The proceedings of the court were being live-streamed. During the aforesaid proceedings, part of the submissions, conversation and comments were as under, which is the part got widely circulated in the social media through YouTube clips, Hon’ble Judge:
Do you understand that…
Learned Advocate for the Respondent:
It is admitted My Lords…
Hon’ble Judge:
Do you understand?
Learned Advocate for the Respondent:
I understand that concept.
Hon’ble Judge:
Where is the books of Accounts. Give us. Are you an Income Tax Assessee?
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner:
Yes, he is an Income Tax Assessee
Hon’ble Judge:
Wait amma
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner:
Sorry sir, sorry sorry sorry, sir sorry
Hon’ble Judge:
Why you are telling, you know everything about the opponent.
At this point, the learned Advocate for the Respondent tries to intervene, Hon’ble Judge continues…
If you are asked tomorrow morning, you will tell everything and you will also tell the color of the undergarment he wears.
Learned Advocate for the Respondent:
Both are friends and it is a story of a carpenter…
[The above submissions, conversations and comments in the video clipping is available from 7.27 to 7.53 minutes]
3.2 The above conversation and comments are available through virtual access in the form of recorded video clipping. The part of the conversation took place in vernacular-Kannada language, which part is submitted with true translation. The text of the conversation is submitted in exact form.
3.3 It may be stated that the clipping submitted herewith to the Hon’ble Court contains portion of previous part as well as portion of subsequent part also to ensure the link and in order to put forth the total.” (emphasis supplied)
6. The report indicates that one of parties to the proceedings was represented by a lawyer who is a woman. The report also contains a nar
