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. Further, in Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India (2025), even though interim protection from arrest was duly granted, the judges orally lashed out at the petitioner, to the extent of calling him “perverted” with a “dirty mind.” Similarly, Rahul Gandhi v. State of UP and Anr (2025) was a defamation matter involving comments made against freedom fighter V.D. Savarkar, wherein interim relief was duly granted, notwithstanding an oral remark stating that “if the petitioner knew anything about the history and geography” of the nation, he wouldn’t have made such comments in the first place.
However, transgressing judicial propriety outside the courtroom, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, whilst delivering a lecture on the Uniform Civil Code at an event, vehemently asserted that the country would function in accordance with the “wishes of the majority.”
Challenges
There are multiple challenges posed by such misdemeanours on the part of judges. First, such remarks are susceptible to misinterpretation. For instance, in 2021, the Madras High Court casually remarked that the Election Commission of India should be booked for murder for allowing election rallies during the pandemic, thereby impliedly and unintentionally attributing culpability to a constitutional body. Second, it is contrary to the principle of judicial propriety, which demands adherence to decorum, the embrace of impartiality, and the practice of reasonable restraint, irrespective of the informal nature of courtroom interactions. Third, such oral observations often reflect personal biases and accumulated predispositions based on a judge’s life experiences and can bring disrepute to judicial integrity. Fourth, when expressed at the pre-trial stage, such subjective views can potentially prejudice the trial outcome. Fifth, given the expansive reach of legal reporting and live streaming, where judicial observations are often consumed in a piecemeal manner, such comments can result in the premature media trial of the accused. Lastly, from a layman’s perspective, it is particularly challenging to grasp the context and essence of such remarks without specialized legal reasoning.
Safeguarding judicial propriety
One of the most effective solutions was articulated by the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijay Bhaskar (2021), where it observed: “Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity.” Furthermore, the widespread live streaming of court proceedings post-COVID has added multiple layers of audience, extending the contours of courtroom spectatorship to individuals beyond the physical premises of the courtroom. This development imposes an added responsibility on all stakeholders in the judicial system.
Additionally, the Supreme Court, in In Re: Remarks by High Court Judge During Court Proceedings (2024), called upon judges to first become aware of their own predispositions shaped by personal life experiences, as such awareness is a sine qua non for preventing those predispositions from influencing their language, both on the Bench and in judgments. Also, it would be prudent to draw inspiration from the JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) model and consider establishing a judicial conduct accountability body in India, with jurisdiction limited strictly to matters of personal misconduct. JCIO, an independent statutory body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 in England, assists the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice in overseeing judicial discipline.
Empowered to address even minor misconduct, such as offensive language or rudeness, the JCIO follows a structured process that may involve reviewing hearing recordings, consulting third parties, and obtaining responses from the judge concerned to assess the validity of complaints. Lastly, it is also imperative to institutionalize sensitization and training as periodic exercises to ensure that judicial remarks remain firmly grounded in legal reasoning upholding the fairness of proceedings. Because being higher or supreme comes with no guarantee of being infallible.
Shivang Tripathi is a Doctoral Researcher, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University and Dr. Shaiwal Satyarthi is a Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
