NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday impressed upon constitutional court judges to be aware of their predispositions and exercise restraint to be able to remain faithful to their fundamental obligations to deliver objective and fair justice without making observations appearing to be misogynistic or hurtful towards certain communities.
A bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy said not only judges but lawyers and litigants appearing in person before court need to be careful about what they say as live-streaming and video conference facilities now take proceedings to millions outside court.
However, the bench was opposed to stopping live-streaming of court proceedings, as had been demanded by certain leaders of bar associations.
“This is a very important reminder to everyone. Answer is not to close everything and shut the doors but to remind us that court proceedings go much beyond the four walls of the courtroom,” the CJI-led bench said, indicating that transparency in judicial proceedings is key to sustain the immense faith the public reposes in it.
Appealing to stakeholders, particularly judges, to refrain from making casual remarks while participating in court proceedings, the bench said, “Casual observations may reflect a degree of individual bias, particularly when these are perceived to be directed against a particular community or gender.” “Courts, therefore, have to be careful not to make comments which may be construed as misogynistic or prejudicial to certain sections of our society,” it said.
“We emphasise this point, as it is necessary for every stakeholder to understand that the values which must not die are the values enshrined in the Constitution (justice, liberty, equality and fraternity),” the bench said.
While closing suo motu proceedings on Karnataka HC Judge V Srishananda’s unwarranted observations, the bench said the live streaming of court proceedings places an additional responsibility on all stakeholders to be conscious about the wider impact of casual observations on the country at large.
The bench said, “As judges, we are conscious of the fact that each individual bears a certain degree of accumulated predisposition based on experiences in their lives. At the same time, every judge should be aware of his predisposition.”