Judge’s views on Muslims sparks outrage; lawyers want live streaming banned

A Karnataka judge’swidely condemned remarks denigrating women and the Muslim community have sparked outrage across India and prompted calls to ban the live telecast of judicial proceedings.

The legal fraternity and civil society groups have denounced Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda for the offensive remarks, which the Supreme Court has also criticised.

Civil society groups like Jagrutha Karnataka have expressed deep concern over the statements, which they fear can undermine social harmony and exacerbate existing religious and gender tensions.

Calling a Muslim area ‘Pakistan’

During a hearing related to a landowner-tenant dispute on August 28, Justice Srishananda referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan".

As if this wasn’t enough, he made misogynistic comments about a woman lawyer too. His remarks, caught on video, went viral on social media, leading to strong reactions from various sections of society.

Judge’s comments on woman lawyer

The judge pulled up a female lawyer for responding to a question posed to the opposing counsel, saying: "It seems this female lawyer knows a lot about the opposing party; she could even tell the colour of their undergarments."

Former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising urged Supreme Court Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on Thursday to take action against Justice Srishananda. The apex court has initiated suo moto proceedings.

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud on Friday sought a report from the Karnataka High Court regarding Justice Srishananda's comments.

The Supreme Court has also indicated that it may consider establishing basic guidelines to prevent such incidents in the future.

The report sought by the Supreme Court is expected to be submitted within two days, with a scheduled hearing on Wednesday. Jagrutha Karnataka argues that such comments are not only inappropriate but also dangerous in a diverse and pluralistic society like India.

Civil society’s concerns

Other groups are concerned that statements made from the bench could disrupt communal harmony and deepen societal divisions. Jagrutha Karnataka, in a statement signed by prominent intellectuals and activists such as Prof. K Marulasiddappa, Dr. G Ramakrishna and Prof. SG Siddaramaiah, expressed shock.

They said: "We are alarmed that a sitting judge of the high court would refer to a Muslim-majority area as 'Pakistan' during a case hearing. India, a country that upholds the principle of equality for all religions under its Constitution, cannot afford to tolerate such divisive language from the judiciary." Religion and judiciary

The controversy has brought back memories of other similar incidents involving judicial remarks.

A few weeks ago, another Karnataka High Court judge had praised "Manusmriti" during a hearing, raising concerns about the growing trend of communal and regressive rhetoric in the judiciary. This issue reignited a debate over the relationship between religion and the judiciary, particularly after recent incidents where public figures, including Chandrachud, took part in religious events.

Lega, constitutional ethics

Voices across the country, including from civil society, legal circles, are calling for greater accountability and sensitivity in judicial conduct to maintain the integrity and impartiality of India’s courts. Senior advocate and constitutional expert BT Venkatesh weighed in on the issue, describing Justice Srishananda's remarks as a serious breach of judicial conduct.

"A judge, as the custodian of the Constitution, must adhere to constitutional ethics. Every citizen is entitled to his personal beliefs but a judge cannot express or practice these ideologies in court. This is a very troubling development," Venkatesh told The Federal.

‘Avoid unnecessary comments’

He emphasized that judges must focus on hearing arguments and delivering justice based on the law, without injecting personal opinions or lecturing advocates on matters unrelated to the case.

"A judge should not make unnecessary comments, especially those targeting women, minorities or vulnerable groups," he added. Under Article 226 of the constitution, high court judges are responsible for safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring the legality of government actions through their writ jurisdiction.

Judges must avoid personal remarks

They are empowered to provide remedies for violations of fundamental rights as well as legal and administrative wrongs. Judges have broad discretionary powers under Article 226, allowing them to grant or deny writs based on the availability of alternative remedies and the fairness of the case. However, they must balance activism and restraint.

"A judge cannot misuse this power by making personal or unconstitutional remarks," Venkatesh said.

Suspend live telecast

The Bangalore Advocates Association has urged Karnataka High Court Chief Justice NV Anjaria to temporarily suspend the live broadcast of court proceedings in the high court. In a letter, Association president Vivek Subbareddy said: "The remarks by Justice Srishananda about a female lawyer have caused confusion and gone viral across the country.

Bar association’s views

“These statements have hurt the sentiments of the legal community, especially young lawyers, and have also faced condemnation from the legal fraternity.

"Considering the sensitivity of this issue, the live broadcast should be suspended. Otherwise, public opinion about the judiciary will change entirely. Although the judges' rulings are exemplary and they have done commendable work, such sarcastic remarks are tarnishing their reputation," he said.