‘Unacceptable to call certain territory of India Pakistan’: CJI rebukes Karnataka judge | India News – Times of India

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rebuked Karnataka HC judge V Srishananda’s reference to a Bangalore locality as Pakistan saying that such remarks undermine the country’s territorial integrity. “We can’t call any part of territory of India as Pakistan,” CJI DY Chandrachud observed.
This came as the apex court took note of Justice Srishananda‘s apology and closed the suo motu proceedings initiated against him.The SC also issued advisory guidelines for judges to ensure that proceedings are conducted with dignity and to discourage casual remarks that reveal personal biases.
Watch: After row over judge’s Pakistan remark, Karnataka HC curbs on sharing live feed
“Courts have to be careful and not make comments which may be construed as misogynistic or prejudicial to any segment of society,” SC observed.
The 5 judge-bench of SC, comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, also observed that such controversies should not lead to calls for halting the live streaming of court proceedings. “The answer to sunlight is more sunlight, to ensure maximum transparency in judicial proceedings,” CJI Chandrachud said, adding that “social media cannot be controlled.”
The bench also noted that live streaming of court proceedings should encourage a more measured conduct among judges and lawyers during hearings.
CJI Chandrachud took suo motu cognisance of Justice Srishananda’s controversial remarks about a Bengaluru locality while discussing traffic rule violations, which gained significant attention on social media, alongside a misogynistic comment directed at a female lawyer.
Karnataka HC Judge expresses regret
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda had expressed his “regret” after the Supreme Court had taken a dim view of his reference to a Muslim-majority Bengaluru area as “Pakistan.” He clarified that his remarks, reported out of context on social media, were unintentional and not aimed at any individual or community.
“A few observations made during judicial proceedings were reported out of context on social media platforms. The observations were unintentional and not meant to hurt any individual or any section of society. If such observations hurt any individual or any section of society or community, I express my sincere regrets,” he said.
He would have clarified his comments to the involved advocate had she been present. Senior advocate Vivek Subbareddy noted that while Justice Srishananda’s judgments are commendable, his informal comments during hearings impact lawyers due to live streaming. The Advocates’ Association urged action against YouTubers misrepresenting court proceedings.