THE HIGHER JUDICIARY MUST EXERCISE CAUTION WHILE AIRING OPINIONS!

• If any institution remains untouched by the bane of disgrace in the country it would be largely the higher judiciary in the form of Supreme Court judges and high court judges, respectively. The Indian citizens view the higher judiciary as the last resort while seeking relief, reprieve, justice, and a patient hearing. An upholder of the Constitution’s propriety. We are aware of how common citizens are subjected to great trials and tribulations in their efforts to seek justice. Yes, we are familiar with the moniker justice delayed is justice denied being bandied about with such nonchalance in India. However, the fact of the matter on the ground is common citizens are finding it hard to obtain timely justice because of several factors including millions of unresolved cases.

PC:Bar and Bench  

• The less said the better about the millions of languishing undertrials across the country’s jails. Amid all this, some of the judges representing the higher judiciary wittingly or unwittingly land up in controversies while airing personal opinions. The country woke up to the recent occurrence of an Allahabad HC judge making public remarks. The SC has taken cognizance of the matter seeking details following complaints of the judge speaking allegedly in favour of majoritarian rule and making pejorative remarks against Muslims at a VHP event on HC premises. The event was organized by VHP’s high court unit. It must be mentioned here that judges must be held to higher standards, no less. The judge in question is no stranger to controversy though.

PC:Live Law

• Several of his orders have made news, as reported. To cite one, he denied bail in a cow slaughter case, speaking not so much on the case’s merits as the cow’s special status, that it was the only animal to exhale oxygen. SC correctly calls out judges over regressive remarks, misogynistic takes, and expressions of religious prejudice. Recent incidents include the Gujarat HC judge who cited Manusmriti in a minor’s rape pregnancy case (normal to give birth at age 17), the Karnataka HC judge who called a part of Bengaluru Pakistan, and the Calcutta HC judge who told teen girls to control their sexual urges. These are some of the most evident uncharacteristic viewpoints. What is damaging is not only that such unwarranted free speech seems to be increasingly normalized.

PC:The Economic Times 

• The judiciary’s problem is as much in the fact that judges who openly breach constitutional principles were selected in the first place. Some argue constitutional positions do not entail a curb on rights to freedom of expression, belief, association, or assembly. But to establish tenets of impartiality, judges’ conduct in office and public events must be above reproach. It is what grants them immunity. Unbecoming conduct is effectively an abuse of that immunity. The moot point is whether a judge can draw a line between his personal politics and his duty to hold court without prejudice. The judges are expected to stay above personal beliefs and uphold constitutional propriety. The SC must send out a strong and clear reminder on this to judges.