On Friday, September 20, the Supreme Court of India took suo-moto cognizance of controversial and anti-Muslim remarks made by Karnataka High Court judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda that have recently surfaced in viral video clips. A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, convened to address the issue and passed an order seeking a report from the Karnataka High Court regarding the judge’s comments, which we have discussed below.
The bench acted after two videos of Justice Srishananda stirred outrage on social media. In one clip, he was seen referring to Gori Palya, a Muslim-dominated area in West Bengaluru, as “Pakistan,” while in another clip, the judge made a gender-insensitive remark to a woman advocate, insinuating that she might even know the colour of the opposing counsel’s undergarments.
During the hearing, CJI Chandrachud addressed Attorney General R. Venkataramani, suggesting the need to establish basic guidelines regarding judicial conduct in light of the comments. “Attorney General, we may lay down some basic guidelines and seek a report from the secretary general of the High Court,” the CJI remarked, indicating the need for caution in an age where judges’ actions are under close public scrutiny due to social media.
As per a report in the LiveLaw, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court to submit a detailed report to the Supreme Court after obtaining administrative directions from the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The matter has been scheduled for further consideration on Monday.
Acknowledging the increasing influence of social media, the CJI noted, “In this age of social media, we are closely watched, and we have to act accordingly.” The comments highlight the judiciary’s recognition of its public role and the expectation of decorum, especially given the viral nature of the videos and the backlash they generated. The case is being closely followed as it raises issues of judicial accountability, gender sensitivity, and communal harmony within the legal system.
Details of the first video:
Justice V Srishananda Islamophobic comment has sparked outrage on social media after a video of his anti-Muslim comment made in open court, referring to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru, Gori Palya, as “Pakistan.” In the video, the judge could be heard stating, “Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India,” while discussing a case related to insurance. The statement, captured in a video clip of the hearing, has since gone viral and ignited widespread criticism online.
The comment was made during a hearing on August 28, 2024 concerning the Rent Control Act. Justice Srishananda, while discussing the law’s provisions, deviated into a broader commentary about public safety and rule enforcement, particularly regarding road traffic violations. He pointed out how, in foreign countries, vehicles are required to strictly follow lane discipline, while in India, these regulations are often ignored. The judge remarked that in foreign countries, even slow drivers are moved to appropriate lanes by the police, while in India, violations are rampant, with offenders often escaping severe consequences. He expressed frustration with the lack of enforcement in India, criticising schools for allowing students to flout traffic rules, and lamented the absence of accountability, especially from the police.
It was during this broader critique of law enforcement and public behaviour that Justice Srishananda made the ‘Pakistan’ remark. Referring to the Gori Palya locality, he commented on how rules are disregarded in the area, stating, “Every auto rickshaw has got 10 people. It is not applicable because the Mysore flyover right up to the flower market from Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality. No matter how strict a police officer you put there, they will be beaten up.” The remark, implying lawlessness and invoking Pakistan as a reference, has been widely condemned for its communal undertone.
Karnataka High Court judge refers to a locality in Bengaluru as Pakistan, sparks outrage on social media. #KarnatakaHighCourt #Bangalore pic.twitter.com/QOrpDkHWoN
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) September 19, 2024
Supreme Court lawyer Sanjoy Ghose took to social media to express his shock, stating, “A judge of an Indian Constitutional Court referring to fellow citizens of a different faith as Pakistani! Astonishing!”
A judge of an Indian Constitutional Court referring to fellow citizens of a different faith as Pakistani! Astonishing!
— sanjoy ghose (@advsanjoy) September 18, 2024
The judge’s remarks have drawn sharp criticism for equating a Muslim-majority neighbourhood with Pakistan, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and questioning the loyalty of Indian citizens based on their faith. The incident fuelled debates around judicial accountability and communal biases within the legal system. Calls for action against such remarks gained momentum, with many questioning how such statements from a constitutional authority align with the values of impartiality and secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Details of the second video:
Hours after the first video of Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in West Bengaluru as “Pakistan” went viral on social media, another controversial video of the judge has emerged, this time featuring a gender-insensitive remark. In the second video, Justice Srishananda is seen making an inappropriate comment directed at a woman lawyer during a court hearing.
The incident occurred while the judge was addressing a male advocate about a case involving cheque bouncing, asking whether the person referred to in the case was an income tax assesse. Before the male advocate could answer, the opposing counsel, a woman lawyer, responded that the person in question was indeed an income tax payer. Justice Srishananda, visibly irritated, interrupted her and asked why she was answering, saying, “Wait amma,” a term used for addressing women in Kannada. The woman lawyer immediately apologised. What followed has ignited further outrage. Smiling, Justice Srishananda quipped, “You know everything about him. If asked tomorrow, you will tell what colour of undergarment he wears,” in Kannada, while gesturing toward the woman lawyer.
The comment elicited smiles from the advocates present in the courtroom, highlighting the male-dominating culture. However, the video remark, which has now gone viral, has drawn strong criticism on social media for its sexist tone and the trivialisation of the woman lawyer’s professional input.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising took to X (formerly Twitter) to express her dismay, sharing the video clip and calling for action. She tweeted, “We call upon the Chief Justice of India to take suo moto action against this judge and send him for gender sensitisation training.” Jaising’s post has added fuel to the growing demands for accountability, with many echoing her call for gender sensitivity training for Justice Srishananda.
We call upon the Chief Justice of India to take suo moto action agsinst this judge and send him for gender sensitisation training. pic.twitter.com/MPEP6x8Jov
— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) September 19, 2024
The need for gender and communal sensitivity in the judiciary:
The back-to-back controversies have raised concerns about the conduct of judicial officers in India, sparking debates about the need for more robust gender and communal sensitivity training within the judiciary. The calls for action are intensifying as both videos circulate widely, prompting demands for the judiciary to address the inappropriate behaviour of Justice Srishananda, who, as a high-ranking member of the legal system, is expected to uphold the principles of impartiality, professionalism, and respect in the courtroom.
The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of these incidents, bringing to light the pressing need for a more robust approach toward gender and communal sensitivity in the judiciary. To truly address these ingrained biases, there must be sustained efforts to provide ongoing gender and communal sensitivity training, starting from the foundation of legal education and continuing throughout judicial careers. Judges, as the guardians of justice, must uphold the highest standards of fairness and respect, not just in their rulings but also in their conduct. Without a proactive and comprehensive framework for sensitising the legal arena, the judiciary risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes and eroding public confidence in the justice system. True accountability requires more than written directives—it demands a cultural shift that reflects the values of equality, inclusivity, and impartiality enshrined in the Constitution.
Related: