Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed controversial comments made by a Karnataka High Court judge. These remarks, which referred to a Muslim-dominated area as "Pakistan" in Bengaluru and included inappropriate comments to a female lawyer, sparked widespread concern. In response, the Supreme Court issued important guidance for judicial conduct. 

What is Article 124(4) of Indian Constitution Related to Judges? 

Removal of Supreme Court Judges 

• A judge of the Supreme Court can only be removed by an order of the President. 
• The removal process requires:  
  • An address to be presented to the President by each House of Parliament.  
  • The address must be supported by:  
    • A majority of the total membership of that House, AND 
    • A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. 
• The address must be presented in the same session for removal. 
• Grounds for removal are limited to:  
  • Proved misbehavior, OR  
  • Incapacity. 

Procedure for Removal 

• Parliament may, by law, regulate: 
  • The procedure for presenting the address for removal. 
  • The process for investigation and proof of misbehavior or incapacity of a Judge. 

Post-Retirement Restrictions 

• A person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court:  
  • Shall not plead or act in any court within the territory of India.  
  • Shall not plead or act before any authority within the territory of India. 

What are the Implications of Justice Srishananda's Inappropriate Comments on the Judiciary? 

• Inappropriate comments:  
  • Justice Srishananda was seen in two viral video clips:  
    • Referring to a Muslim-dominated area in Bengaluru (Gori Palya) as "Pakistan"  
    • Making objectionable remarks to a woman advocate in a matrimonial dispute 
• Supreme Court's response:  
  • The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings against these remarks on 20th September, 2024. 
  • A 5-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud heard the matter. 
• Concerns raised by the Supreme Court:  
  • Such comments on the territorial integrity of India. 
  • Casual observations by judges can reflect individual bias, particularly against specific genders or communities. 
  • These remarks can negatively impact both the individual judge's court and the wider judicial system. 
• Apology and closure:  
  • Justice Srishananda expressed regret in an open court on 21st September, stating his observations were unintentional. 
  • The Supreme Court decided to close the proceedings in light of the judge's apology. 
• Broader implications:  
  • The Supreme Court observed the need for judges to exercise restraint, especially in the digital age where court proceedings are widely reported and live-streamed. 
  • The court stressed the importance of impartiality and fairness in judicial proceedings. 
  • It highlighted the need for judges to be aware of their own predispositions to deliver objective justice. 

Why did the Supreme Court Stated on Conduct of Judges? 

• No part of India should be called "Pakistan":  
  • The Supreme Court firmly stated that it's wrong to refer to any area in India as "Pakistan." This goes against the idea of India being one united country. 
• Judges should be careful with their words:  
  • The Court warned judges to avoid making casual comments that might seem unfair to women or any community. 
• Casual remarks can show bias:  
  • The Supreme Court pointed out that off-the-cuff comments by judges might reveal personal biases, especially if they seem to target specific genders or communities. 
• Comments can harm the court's image: 
  • Such remarks can damage not just the reputation of the judge who made them, but also the entire court system. 
• Extra caution needed in the digital age:  
  • The Court reminded judges that in today's world, where court proceedings are often recorded and shared widely, they need to be extra careful about what they say. 
• Fairness is crucial:  
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that being fair and unbiased is at the core of a judge's job. 
  • Judges need to be aware of their own biases to ensure they make fair decisions. 
• Perception matters:  
  • It's not just about making fair decisions; it's also important that people see the justice system as fair to everyone. 
• Case closed, but lesson learned:  
  • While the Supreme Court decided not to take further action because the High Court judge apologized, they used this opportunity to remind all judges about proper conduct. 
• Adapting to new times:  
  • The Court called on everyone in the legal system - judges and lawyers alike - to adjust their behavior to meet the expectations of today's digital world. 
• Constitution is the guide:  
  • The Court stressed that judges should only be guided by the values written in the Indian Constitution when making decisions. 

Conclusion 

By addressing this issue, the Supreme Court provided important guidance for the entire judicial system. They make a point of the need for judges to be careful with their words, especially in today's digital age where comments can spread quickly. The Court states that fairness, impartiality, and respect for all communities are fundamental to the role of a judge. While accepting the High Court judge's apology, the Supreme Court made it clear that such remarks have no place in India's justice system.