Extra-Judicial Speech: The Growing Menace Threatening Judicial Restraint

When Courts Risk Becoming Reality Shows and Panchayats

SEEMA SINDHU

The recent shoe-throwing incident targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai in the Supreme Court, while unequivocally condemnable and a criminal contempt of court, has unfortunately overshadowed a deeper, more pervasive issue: the rising trend of extra-judicial speech within the judiciary. This commentary explores how such unwarranted remarks and public sermonizing by judges, often outside the legal merit of a case, erode judicial decorum and restraint, contributing to the very controversies that lead to incidents like the shoe scandal.

The Genesis of Controversy

The shoe scandal’s roots lie in the dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho. CJI Gavai’s dismissal, accompanied by the jeering remark, “go and ask the deity himself to do something…pray and do some meditation,” was an act of extra-judicial speech. While the court’s jurisdiction was limited to ruling on the PIL’s legal merit, the remark went beyond, potentially inciting the “fanatics” and “zealots” whose resulting actions and statements have since disturbed the country.

Eroding Judicial Restraint

The issue extends beyond this singular event, reflecting an increasing pattern of judges speaking outside the strict confines of their judgments:

• Speaking on Own Judgments: Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, in a recent interview, made personal remarks about the Ayodhya verdict, a case in which he was one of the five judges. This opened a “closed matter” and sparked talk of filing a curative petition based on his comments. The centuries-old convention dictates that judges must speak through their judgments only, especially considering that ordinary audiences often lack the legal knowledge to properly interpret such remarks, leading to distortion and controversy.
• Courtroom Sermonizing: The trend of judges delivering homilies and moral policing is also on the rise. Examples include Justice Surya Kant’s extra-judicial remarks in the Nupur Sharma case and the Ranveer Allahbadia case, as well as controversial sermonizing from various High Courts, often in sensitive matrimonial and live-in protection cases. The infamous Calcutta High Court’s homily, “girls must control sexual urges,” is a striking example.

The Bedrock of Judicial Integrity

The judiciary has a centuries-old convention of hearing matters with an equanimous mind and a stoic face. The writer argues that jeering and moral policing should remain “synonymous with Reality Shows and Panchayats, not the judiciary.”

The legal fraternity has a crucial role and has so far failed to raise this issue with the judiciary. A strong Bar must condemn extra-judicial remarks with the same force reserved for acts of contempt, recognizing that a strong bar is the bedrock of a strong bench and essential for maintaining the integrity and decorum of the courts.

(The writer is lawyer at Supreme Court. The views expressed in the article are her personal. X @SeemaSindhu Linkedin @SeemaSindhu )