Unacceptable views from a judge

The Courts of Law that dole out justice and seen to be the last resort from where people expect fairplay, are least expected to use the language of bigotry and misogyny. But when Karnataka High court judge V. Srishananda referred to a Muslim dominated area in Bengaluru as ‘Pakistan’ and made extremely indecent and obnoxious comments about a female advocate’s knowledge of a litigant, not merely the legal fraternity, but even commoners were left aghast. It was in the fitness of the things that the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the remarks made by the judge during court proceedings where there was no need or scope for such utterances.

The apex court, as warranted, took up the matter expeditiously, lest the judge’s comments could cast stains on the fair reputation of the court. Though the said judge later realised his folly and apologised for use of inappropriate language, it was plain that he was not merely dubbing an area integral to the nation as ‘Pakistan’ but was also using an entirely pedestrian stereotype for a community that inhabited the area. The remark went beyond the folly of committing an ordinary indecency of questioning the territorial integrity. In its intent and purpose, the remark caused a slur against a community and likened them with citizens of a country generally categorised as hostile.

Given this backdrop, it appears that the Supreme Court has let off the judge with rather mild castigation in view of the offending judge’s apology coming prior to the honourable court taking up the matter. Even more oddly, the learned judge’s comment on the female advocate’s knowledge of the rival litigant does not even bear repetition here for its crudity. The comments are totally unworthy coming from a temple of justice. It is however hoped that the apex court’s comment would serve as a warning against such remarks emanating from the sanctified corridors of justice.