NEW DELHI: Supreme Court‘s top five judges, part of the collegium for transfer of HC judges and comprised the bench that had taken suo motu cognisance of Justice V Srishananda‘s unwarranted gratuitous remarks, had mulled transferring him outside Karnataka HC.
Between September 20, when the bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy took cognisance of Justice Srishananda‘s remarks, and Sept 25, when it admonished him prior to closing the case, the collegium comprising the same five judges had weighed the option of shifting the judge outside his parent HC.
As the Karnataka HC Registrar General’s Sept 23 report, prepared in consultation with the HC chief justice N V Anjaria, referred to many past gratuitous and unwarranted observations of Justice Srishananda, the five-member Collegium deliberated on the option of shifting the judge to another HC to register SC’s strong objection to such remarks.
Interestingly, a day after the SC took suo motu cognisance of Justice Srishananda’s June 6 gender insensitive remark and Aug 28 illogical reference to a Bengaluru locality as ‘part of Pakistan’, the judge during the post-lunch session of court proceedings on Sept 21 said that his observations were unintentional and tendered apology in open court.
The regret and promise to mend his ways crept into deliberations of the collegium, with some judges opposing transfer proposal on three grounds – Justice Srishananda has realised and regretted his mistake and this, along with the clarification that he did not wish to hurt any individual or community and apology tendered suo motu should be treated as mitigating factors.
They also cautioned that a transfer would become a precedent warranting transfer of all the outspoken judges as well as an incentive for the vigilantes who would be encouraged to pluck a seemingly controversial remark and wrench it from the context to set up a campaign against judges they don’t like.
The reservations saw the Collegium failing to reach unanimity on whether to transfer Justice Srishananda leading them to settle suo motu judicial proceedings being taken to the logical conclusion on Sept 25.
Taking a larger view even as they admonished the erring judge, the five-judge bench Wednesday laid down basic parameters for a judge’s conduct in a courtroom saying they, as well as all stakeholders including lawyers, should be mindful of what they say in a courtroom as live telecast and video conferencing facilities reach the judicial proceedings to a vast audience beyond the courtrooms.
The bench closed the proceedings saying, “Courts therefore have to be careful not to make comments which may be construed as misogynistic or prejudicial to certain sections of our society… We emphasise this point, as it is necessary for every stakeholder in the institution to understand that the values which must not die are the values enshrined in the Constitution (Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity).”