Control sexual urges; Pakistan in Bangalore: When judges forgot they were in court

It is widely regarded as inappropriate and unethical for a judge of a constitutional court to make remarks that can be perceived as communal, sexist, or even casual. Judges occupy a position of immense authority and responsibility and their words — whether delivered in judgments or during public discourse — carry weight and influence.This issue of judges crossing the line has resurfaced following the release of two recent videos involving Justice V Srishananda of the Karnataka high court.In the first video, the judge is seen making a communal remark during a hearing on the Rent Control Act. He refers to Goripalya — a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru — as Pakistan. “Go to that Mysuru Road flyover. Every autorickshaw has got 10 people. It is not applicable because the Mysore flyover right up to the flower market from Goripalya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality. This is the reality. No matter how strict police officer you put there, they will be beaten up there,” the judge is heard saying.In the other video, which surfaced just hours after the first one, Justice Srishananda is seen making an off-colour remark while addressing a woman lawyer. The woman lawyer makes the mistake of answering a question posed to a lawyer representing the other side, and the judge reacts by saying that she “appears to know everything about the opposing party and will next reveal the colour of the opposing party’s undergarments.”The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of Justice Srishananda’s utterances and emphasised that impartiality and fairness are crucial in adjudication of case — both in fact and perception. On September 25, the court accepted Justice Srishananda’s apology and closed the case after cautioning him and other judges to avoid making casual misogynistic or communally coloured comments.This case, however, is sadly just one of several instances in recent times where judges’ remarks have caused public outcry. Various comments, often perceived as communal, sexist, or insensitive, continue to trigger controversies. They also raise important discussions about the need for judicial decorum, accountability, and sensitivity during court proceedings. Here’s a look at some of them:Are co-eds run by Christians ‘unsafe’ for girls?In August 2019, Justice S Vaidyanathan — then serving as a judge of the Madras high court — sparked controversy with a series of remarks during a case involving a sexual harassment inquiry at Madras Christian College (MCC).While refusing to quash the ongoing proceedings, he commented that many parents, particularly of female students, felt co-education in Christian institutions, despite their academic reputation, was “unsafe”. He further questioned the “preaching of morality” in these institutions, casting doubt on their ethical standards.An assistant professor had approached the court to challenge the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), after 34 students filed a petition accusing him of harassment during an academic tour to Bengaluru, Mysuru, and Coorg earlier that year. Justice Vaidyanathan, in his order, reportedly remarked: “Christian missionaries are always the source of attack in one way or the other,” and went on to suggest that there were “several accusations” against missionaries for engaging in forced religious conversions.The judge then spoke about the perceived safety concerns at Christian institutions, adding, “As long as a religion is practised in streets in lieu of its worship places, like temple, mosque, church, etc., such devastation, as in the present case, does occur and will be mushrooming.”Justice Vaidyanathan retired as a Chief Justice of the Meghalaya HC in August this year.Brahmins are born twiceA little over three months before his retirement, Justice V Chitambaresh of the Kerala high court attended the Tamil Brahmin’s Global Meet, where his remarks stirred outrage.In his address, he extolled the virtues of being a Brahmin, stating: “A Brahmin is dwijhanmana — twice born. Because of poorva janma suhridham, he is twice born.”He went on to describe Brahmins as possessing “certain distinct characteristics: clean habits, lofty thinking, sterling character, mostly a vegetarian and a lover of Carnatic music”.“All good qualities rolled into one is a Brahmin,” he added.Justice Chitambaresh urged his fellow community members to reconsider whether reservations should be based on community or caste. He cautiously prefaced his remarks by saying: “Occupying a constitutional post, it may not be proper for me to express any opinion — I am not expressing my opinion at all. But I am only kindling your interest or reminding you that there is a platform for you to agitate or to voice your concern about economic reservation alone, and not caste or communal reservation.” ShowQuotesElaborating his views, Justice Chitambaresh said: “Of course, there is a 10% reservation for economically backward classes. A son of a Brahmin cook, even if he falls within the non-creamy layer zone, will not get any reservation. Whereas, a son of a timber merchant, who belongs to other backward communities, will get reservation if he is within the non-creamy layer zone. I am not expressing any opinion at all; it is for you to deliberate and put forward your opinion,” he reportedly said. Little over a year after his retirement, he joined the BJP in March 2021.Girls must ‘control their sexual urges’In 2023, a division bench of the Calcutta high court, consisting of Justices Chitta Ranjan Dash and Partha Sarathi Sen, sparked outrage with their remarks while acquitting a man previously convicted of raping a minor. The judges went on to advise young girls “control their sexual urges,” which drew widespread criticism and raised questions about the court’s stance on consent and minors in sexual relationships.Before advocating for changes to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the bench stressed the need for a “duty/obligation”-based approach” in addressing adolescent sexual urges.The court stated that every adolescent female has a duty to protect the integrity of her body, maintain her dignity and self-worth, and exercise control over her sexual urges. The bench noted that societal perception often equates yielding to momentary pleasure with being a “loser”, reinforcing the idea that young women, in particular, should be mindful of this stigma. The judges called for adolescents to prioritise self-respect and long-term well-being over temporary desires.The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the remarks and deemed them “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted”. The SC bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Pankaj Mithal, emphasised that judges should refrain from expressing personal views or delivering moral lectures in their judgments.The bench pointed out that the HC’s role was strictly to assess the merits of the appeal against the conviction and that making moralistic remarks was inappropriate. ShowQuotesMoreover, the SC bench noted that the HC’s observations violated the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The remarks, the Supreme Court asserted, overstepped the boundaries of judicial propriety and infringed upon the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.‘...unbecoming of an Indian woman’In June 2020, Justice Krishna Dixit of the Karnataka high court, in an order granting bail to a rape accused, expressed scepticism about the survivor’s statement, noting that he found it “a bit difficult to believe”. ShowQuotesThe judge questioned the survivor why she had gone to her office at 11pm, why she did not object to consuming drinks with the accused, and why she allowed the accused to stay with her until the morning.“The explanation offered by her that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep is unbecoming of an Indian woman...,” the judge said in the order, adding that this is “not the way our women react when they are ravished.”‘...no sexual intercourse before a proper marriage’In October 2013, additional sessions judge Virender Bhat, while adjudicating a case of rape on the pretext of marriage, said: “They [women] voluntarily elope with their lovers to explore the greener pastures of bodily pleasure, and on return to their homes they conveniently fabricate the story of kidnap and rape in order to escape scolds and harsh treatment from the parents.”He then added: “The girls are morally and socially bound not to indulge in sexual intercourse before a proper marriage, and if they do so, it would be to their peril, and they cannot be heard to cry later on that it was rape.”The Delhi high court took suo motu cognisance of the case a week later. During the hearing, it criticised the remarks, observing that they were insensitive and could negatively influence the way police handle cases of harassment and sexual violence against women.The HC noted that such statements could lead to insensitive investigations where the complete evidence may not be properly presented before the court, potentially undermining the judicial process.The bench observed that the judge had allowed his personal views and biases about women to influence his decision-making and suggested that he be required to attend discussions on gender sensitivity.