Judges Must Refrain From Making Unwarranted Oral Observations
By A Special Correspondent
First publised on 2022-07-05 14:02:45
About the Author
In April
2021, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud advised all High
Court judges against making "off the cuff" remarks during the hearing of cases
as they can be damaging to the persons against whom they are made. Given the
propensity of judges to make such oral observations during hearings, this was a
sane advice from the apex court. But are Supreme Court judges exempt from the
same?
In a few
recent cases, notably the Nupur Sharma case and the Gujarat riots case, Supreme
Court judges have been guilty of the same. In the Nupur Sharma case especially,
while denying her relief for clubbing of the cases, the judges on the
bench said that "if the conscience of the court is not satisfied, the law can be
moulded". In this context, one can give the benefit of the doubt to judges as
they can refuse relief despite Article 20(2) and judicial precedent if they do
not think the case deserves it. They are within their rights to interpret the
provisions of the law as per their reading.
But when
the bench castigated Nupur Sharma for what the judges thought was her "loose
tongue" which according to them "set the country on fire" (and remember, all
this was oral observation) were they not transgressing from the matter at hand?
Or was it that having said that the conscience of the court was not satisfied
while denying relief to the petitioner, they thought it fit to justify their action?
Whatever
the reason, the court's oral observations did bring down the dignity of the
judiciary as they showed the bias of the judges. They were pontificating on an
alleged crime which was not the subject matter of the case at hand. They simply
had to decide whether all cases filed against Nupur Sharma all over India could
be clubbed into one case and transferred to Delhi. But in their oral
observations, the judges sought to portray her as a dangerous criminal who did not
deserve any relief. Was that fair? Was it not against the Supreme Court advice
to refrain from making damaging oral observations?
There was
huge criticism of the two judges on the bench on social media after which one
of the judges, Justice JB Pardiwala, called for stricter control of social media
platforms. Now, a group of ex-judges, ex-bureaucrats and other prominent persons
have issued an open letter where they have criticized the judges for the oral
observations against Nupur Sharma. They have said that the two judges crossed
the laxman rekha and their "unfortunate comments" are an "indelible scar on the
justice system of the largest democracy". Should not the Supreme Court judges
learn to practice what they preach?
