New Delhi: On Friday, nearly half an hour before the live-streaming of court proceedings began on Karnataka High Court’s YouTube channel, it flashed a message, cautioning viewers against recording, sharing, and disseminating videos of the proceedings or archival data without authorisation.
The message titled ‘Disclaimers, Prohibitions and Restrictions’ said, “No person or entity (including print and electronic media, and social media platforms) other than an authorised person or entity shall record, share and/or disseminate Live-streamed Proceedings or Archival Data.”
The notice further said that this provision applies to all messaging applications, adding that any person or entity acting contrary to this provision will be prosecuted as per law.
“The Court shall have the exclusive copyright in the Recordings and Archival Data. Any unauthorised usage of the Live-stream will be punishable as an offence under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, Information Technology Act, 2000 and other provisions of law, including the law of Contempt,” the message said while adding that any party or litigant-in-person accessing the live proceedings will be bound by these rules.
This development comes a day after videos of certain remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda during various court proceedings started gaining traction on social media.
The Advocates Association Bengaluru wrote to the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court N.V. Anjaria Friday requesting a pause on live streaming from the high court for a few days in light of the “serious controversies” erupting over the judge’s remarks.
“While this brings into focus the larger issue of treatment to younger members of the bar and by judges and particularly the treatment of lady advocates, the Advocates Association Bangalore requests that till such time until there is sensitisation on views that could be aired in open courts, there should be total stoppage of live streaming for such courts,” the letter says, claiming that, otherwise, the situation could escalate and the image of the courts could be “totally damaged”.
Also Read: Brought in as part of ‘mini Constitution’, what is Article 51A that talks about fundamental duties
What were the remarks made by the judge?
According to the Bar and Bench, the judge’s remarks first sparked outrage after he was seen referring to Bangalore’s Muslim-dominated area, Gori Palya, as “Pakistan”.
In the video, the judge can be seen saying, “Go to that Mysuru Road flyover. Every auto rickshaw has got 10 people. It is not applicable because the Mysore flyover right up to the flower market from Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality.”
The judge made these remarks on August 28 while hearing a case relating to the Rent Control Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. However, they started doing the rounds on social media only on 19 September (Thursday).
In another video that surfaced on social media Thursday, the same judge is seen rebuking a female advocate for responding to a question he had asked the lawyer on the other side.
“Wait amma. Why are you responding? You know everything about him. If questioned tomorrow, you will tell what colour undergarment he wears,” Justice Srishananda is heard telling the female advocate in Kannada.
Reacting to the video, the same day, senior advocate Indira Jaising, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), called on Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud to send the judge for gender sensitisation.
We call upon the Chief Justice of India to take suo moto action agsinst this judge and send him for gender sensitisation training. pic.twitter.com/MPEP6x8Jov
— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) September 19, 2024
A day later, a five-judge bench of the top court, led by CJI Chandrachud, took suo motu cognisance of the case.
What the Supreme Court has said
On Friday, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, took note of the remarks made by Justice Srishananda and asked the Karnataka High Court Registrar General to send them a report after taking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of the high court.
“Attention of the court has been drawn to media reports about certain comments which have been made by a Karnataka High Court judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, during judicial proceedings. We have requested the learned Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General to assist us,” the court said.
The court also mentioned the possibility of laying down guidelines with the assistance of the Karnataka High Court Registrar General.
How the legal community reacted
Speaking to ThePrint, former Supreme Court judge, Justice A.K. Patnaik said, “The Supreme Court has done a good job taking cognisance of the matter. Judges cannot keep on saying anything in court. They have to exercise some restraint.”
On the other hand, former Supreme Court judge, Justice Madan B. Lokur said, “The Chief Justice of the High Court must counsel the judge, otherwise he may say something equally obnoxious and outrageous again. As a disciplinary measure, the Chief Justice should withdraw all cases before him for at least a week or two, to enable him to cool off. This will undoubtedly increase the workload of other judges, but I’m sure they will be able to manage.”
Meanwhile, Supreme Court lawyer and human rights activist Prashant Bhushan told ThePrint, “The first remark, where the judge is seen comparing a Bangalore locality to Pakistan, is highly objectionable, in my view. It shows that the mindset of the judge is not consistent with his belief in the Constitution. It amounts to impeachable misconduct.”
He also added that it was improper for a judge to make such remarks. Underlining that the judge ought to have avoided making these remarks in the course of judicial proceedings, senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose said, “In a society where we are dealing with so much prejudice, the last bastion which should fall to prejudice is our judiciary.”
“The perception that Muslims or any one particular community are not given to follow the laws or that the police are hesitant to apply the law to that community is anecdotal, prejudicial and borders on islamophobia. More importantly, it’s not based on any study or survey.”
Adding that such discourse should be avoided in judicial proceedings, Ghose said that these days one should be conscious that all proceedings are aired and publicly viewed.
“Whatever the judge says has an amplifying impact and effect on all judges in the state, including the subordinate judiciary, lawyers and even law students,” he said. The top court must strictly lay down guidelines on what is acceptable speech, he said.
Delhi-based Supreme Court lawyer Nizam Pasha also said, “Judges making remarks in open court that give away their biases is a concern that has rightly been taken up suo motu by the SC. But this incident has also exposed the harsh reality that judges too harbour communal biases, and these might affect their decisions in communally sensitive cases.”
“Just calling for restraint on expression by judges will simply brush the problem under the carpet. The problem itself has to be addressed by sensitisation and a system that ensures adequate representation of minorities, both in recruitment and in the constitution of benches hearing communally sensitive cases,” Pasha added.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: ‘Tareekh pe tareekh’ is not it. Here’s why India’s district courts are staring at massive pendency
One can understand the anger over the misogynistic remarks directed at the lady advocate. But why take umbrage over the “Mysuru Road auto” remark? He just stated the obvious truth.
The situation is the same across all Muslim dominated localities in India. Why should the truth be accused of falling foul of the Indian Constitution. If the Constitution falls foul w.r.t to the truth, then the Constitution is at fault. Not the truth.
If anyone beeds proof of what the judge said, I request them to visit the area in question and spend an hour there. They can see and hear things for thenselves.