SMW(C)NO.9/2024

Summary

The transcript discusses a judicial review regarding comments made by Justice V. Shanda of the Karnataka High Court during court proceedings, which were reportedly misinterpreted and criticized on social media. The court acknowledges the need for judicial responsibility in light of live-streamed proceedings and the far-reaching impact of such comments. Justice Shanda clarified that any controversial remarks were unintentional and expressed an apology if they caused distress. The discussion emphasizes the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary and encourages stakeholders to be mindful of their language to preserve public trust in the legal system.

Takeaways

• 📄 A report was submitted by the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka regarding comments made by Justice V. Shanda during judicial proceedings.
• 🕒 The incidents in question occurred on June 6, 2024, and August 28, 2024, with a focus on comments made by the judge that were reported in the media.
• 🎥 The Karnataka High Court has implemented rules for live streaming and recording court proceedings, which are accessible on its official YouTube channel.
• 🤔 Justice V. Shanda clarified that some of his comments were taken out of context and expressed that any unintentional offense caused was regrettable.
• 🙏 The judge tendered an apology for any hurt caused by his remarks, emphasizing that they were not intended to target any individual or community.
• ⚖️ The court decided not to pursue further proceedings against the judge in light of his apology, considering it in the interest of justice and institutional dignity.
• 🌐 The prevalence of social media has heightened the responsibility of judges and lawyers to be cautious with their remarks during court proceedings.
• 📝 Judges must be aware of their own biases to ensure impartial and fair justice, aligning their values with the Constitution of India.
• 🔍 The report highlights the need for careful consideration of comments made in court, particularly regarding gender and community sensitivities.
• 💬 The court expressed concerns about the negative impact of social media comments on the judicial system, stressing the importance of responsible communication.

Q & A

What was the initial concern that prompted the discussion in the transcript?

The initial concern was regarding comments made by Justice V. Shanda during judicial proceedings, which were reported by the media and deemed potentially damaging.

How did Justice Shanda respond to the allegations about his comments?

Justice Shanda clarified that certain observations made by him were taken out of context and were unintentional, emphasizing that he did not intend to hurt any individual or community.

What procedural actions were discussed regarding the handling of the report from the Registrar General?

There was a suggestion to adopt an in-house procedure for addressing the concerns raised, rather than escalating the matter judicially.

What specific events did the report from the Registrar General focus on?

The report focused on two proceedings held on June 6 and August 28, 2024, before Justice Shanda, detailing the context of the comments made during these sessions.

What was the public's reaction to the judge's comments, according to the transcript?

The public's reaction included wide reporting on social media, which led to concerns about the impact of the judge's comments on the judicial system's integrity.

What was noted about the live-streaming of court proceedings?

The Karnataka High Court has rules for live streaming and recording court proceedings, which are conducted through its official YouTube channel and were emphasized as a means to promote access to justice.

Why is it important for judges to be aware of their own biases, according to the discussion?

Judges must be aware of their biases to ensure impartiality and fairness in their decisions, which is essential for delivering objective justice.

What role does social media play in the perception of judicial proceedings?

Social media amplifies the reach of court proceedings and can lead to significant public scrutiny, thus imposing additional responsibilities on judges and lawyers to conduct themselves carefully.

What was the court's stance on further proceedings regarding Justice Shanda's comments?

The court decided not to pursue further proceedings in light of Justice Shanda's apology and the desire to maintain institutional dignity.

What caution was expressed regarding the handling of discussions on social media?

Concerns were raised about the potential for social media to be used as a tool for vitriolic criticism without understanding the context of judicial comments, necessitating caution among all stakeholders.