Judgments Must Not Include Personal Views of Judges
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-09-05 11:14:25
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
Despite the Supreme Court recently advising judges to keep their orders to the point and not digress or make out of context observations or pontificate on certain topics, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has been making certain unscientific claims and putting out his unverified points of view on the importance of the cow to the Hindus and the benefits of cow milk, cow urine and cow dung. He said that it is the fundamental right of the Hindus to protect cows and that it should be made India's 'National Animal'. He also repeated the claim that Uttarakhand CM Trivendra Singh Rawat made a few days ago that cow is the only animal that both inhales and exhales oxygen (in truth all animals exhale a small amount of oxygen, mixed with other gases).
It is not for a judge to make such partisan and personal views public, especially not during the course of hearing a serious matter or delivering an order. The case before the about was about a man accused of cow slaughter. The judge made these observations while denying bail to the accused. The judge should have gone by the law instead of making such observations. The judiciary in India is largely free of bias and is respected for that. But when a judge passes such orders, it casts a doubt on the fairness of the system as it shows his bias. If the law says that cow slaughter is a crime and that a person is not to be given bail if caught, the judge must follow the law and give valid legal points to deny the bail. But it does not befit his high office to make such observations.
Courts are temples of law where judges are expected to decide cases by interpreting the law as it exists, based on the evidence presented before them and after hearing the arguments of both sides. They are not expected to bring their personal thinking into deciding the case nor are they expected to make unverified claims or observations that can be construed as motivated. This shows the judiciary in bad light and must be avoided at all costs.
