SHIELDING JUDICIAL PROPRIETY AGAINST CASUAL REMARKS

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in In Re: Remarks by High Court Judge During Court Proceedings (2024), observed that "The perception of justice to every segment of society is as important as the rendition of justice as an objective fact," and that "casual observations often reflect individual bias of the judges," thereby warranting caution on the part of judges.

- SHIVANG TRIPATHI AND DR. SHAIWAL SATYARTHI

Recent proceedings in the Supreme Court and certain High Courts have brought to light a growing concern: judges, albeit acting in good faith, have made oral observations framed in language indicative of personal opinion, with only a tenuous connection to the facts and legal issues under consideration.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in In Re: Remarks by High Court Judge During Court Proceedings (2024), observed that "The perception of justice to every segment of society is as important as the rendition of justice as an objective fact," and that "casual observations often reflect individual bias of the judges," thereby warranting caution on the part of judges.

In the era of social media, where news is consumed in brief snippets, such observations can have unintended adverse repercussions for the subjects involved and may undermine the fairness of trial proceedings. This underscores the need for a deeper examination of the role and limits of judicial commentary in the courtroom.

OFF-THE-CUFF REMARKS

When a judge of the Karnataka High Court referred to a specific territorial area in Bangalore as "Pakistan," the Supreme Court promptly initiated suo motu proceedings and strictly advised caution and reasonable restraint. Also, in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Court emphasized that a judge's personal distaste for particular words or expressions cannot impede the fulfilment of constitutional responsibilities or the delivery of impartial justice.