By Arshad Shaikh
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Friday took suo moto action against the prejudiced remarks against Muslims made by a Karnataka High Court judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, who referred to a Muslim-majority locality in Bengaluru as “Pakistan” during a court proceeding. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge Constitution bench, took note of the comment, which surfaced in a video circulated online. Justice Srishananda made the remark while discussing a landlord-tenant dispute in Gori Palya, a Muslim-dominated area in Bengaluru. During the hearing, the judge said, “Go to the Mysore Road flyover, every auto rickshaw has 10 people. It is not applicable because the Mysore flyover head left to the market from Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality. No matter how strict a police officer you put there, they will be beaten up there.”
Backlash on Social Media
Several prominent social media handles flagged the obnoxious remarks by Justice Srishananda. Fact-checker and co-founder of AltNews, Mohammed Zubair tweeted on 19 September, “One-month-old video of Karnataka High Court, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda while criticizing the cops referred to an area (Gori Palya) in Bengaluru as Pakistan. Gori Palya is an area where a large number of Muslims live. He was referring to auto pooling in that area where daily wage workers use the auto pool to travel for work. This video is now used by Right Wing accounts including BJP members to target the Muslim community.” Zubair also pointed out, “One more video of the judge is currently viral. Lady lawyer. Yes. He is an income tax assessee. Judge. Wait Amma. Why are you telling? You know everything about him. Tomorrow morning you will tell which colour undergarment he wears.” Senior advocate Indira Jaising took to X (formerly Twitter) and requested the CJI to take suo moto action against the judge and send him for gender sensitisation training.
Apex court takes cognizance
The Supreme Court bench comprising of the CJI and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy has requested a report from the Karnataka High Court, instructing the Registrar General to submit the findings within two weeks after seeking guidance from the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The court requested Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court. The apex court stressed the need for guidelines to ensure constitutional court judges maintain decorum in their comments, especially as social media increasingly monitors courtroom proceedings.
Communal nature of remarks
The remarks made by Justice Srishananda, referring to a Muslim-majority locality as “Pakistan,” reflects a deep-seated prejudice found in those infected by the “communal virus” steadfastly bred and nurtured by an ideology that has spread its tentacles in every stratum of society. It openly runs an anti-Muslim agenda through its political arm and has infiltrated every section of the executive, the media, the education sector and even the armed forces. Its last unconquered bastion remains the judiciary which it is assiduously trying to influence. Justice Srishananda’s remarks play into the Islamophobic narrative of associating Indian Muslims with foreign, hostile elements, particularly Pakistan, which has officially been treated as an enemy nation (under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 which enables and regulates the appropriation of property in India owned by Pakistani nationals). The judiciary is duty-bound to be neutral and uphold constitutional values. Such blatantly hateful comments from judges perpetuate harmful stereotypes and increase the alienation and polarization of the Muslim community in India.
Doubting loyalty of Indian Muslims
The remark also reinforces the incorrect perception that Indian Muslims are not fully loyal to India, casting doubts on their national allegiance by linking them to Pakistan. Such narratives have historically marginalized Muslims, framing them as outsiders in their own country, and have traumatized them emotionally and psychologically. Six years ago (as stated in an article by Soutik Biswas for the BBC – ‘Invisible in our own country’: Being Muslim in Modi’s India), in Agra, a nine-year-old Muslim boy faced a distressing incident when his classmates labelled him a “Pakistani terrorist” during a mock fight at school. His mother, Reema Ahmad, an author and counsellor, vividly recalls how deeply hurt and angry her son was, with clenched fists leaving nail marks in his palms. Thousands of such Islamophobic incidents take place in our country without being recorded or reported by the media. They have been completely normalized and Muslims have taken them in their stride, as if it is part of their everyday life. Whenever Muslims gather in large numbers for their festivals or to protest against something, the easiest way to tarnish their image is to float in the media that there were pro-Pakistan slogans raised in the gathering or Pakistani flags waved. A common slogan during anti-Muslim riots is “jisko chahiye Pakistan, usko bhejo qabristan” (those who want Pakistan, send them to the graveyard).
Grave role of the judiciary
The judiciary plays a critical role in safeguarding secularism and equal respect for the followers of all religions, especially in a diverse country like India. Judges are expected to refrain from making divisive or communal comments. Their integrity and perseverance in maintaining impartiality and decorum is crucial for embodying the judiciary as a protector of minority rights. Such loose remarks also undermine public trust in the legal system, which can be very damaging for any democracy. It is indeed a sorry state of affairs that communal language has seeped into mainstream discourse, even within formal judicial settings. The growing menace of hate speech and communal rhetoric deployed by mainstream politicians in India, has contributed to the immense societal polarization. All public figures, including judges, must be cautious in their words, given the influence they wield over public opinion and legal precedent. Meanwhile, the judge in the eye of the storm, Justice V Srishananda on Saturday expressed regret for his statements. Clarifying his intentions, he said that he never intended to hurt anyone’s feelings or sentiments and apologized if his comments had caused offense. His clarification was made in the presence of members of the Advocates Association of Bengaluru, who have called for a temporary halt to livestreaming of proceedings, citing concerns over how clips with “adverse and mischievous meanings” were being circulated on social media, fuelling the controversy.
