Attack on judges puts rule of law on burner, says SC judge

The constitutional courts, the judge said, have always accepted informed dissents and constructive criticisms but debarred personalised agenda-driven attacks on the judges while ignoring the sanctity of respect for the courts.

Lamenting the “agenda-driven attack on judges” and the endeavours to influence the outcome of sensitive cases, Supreme Court judge JB Pardiwala on Sunday favoured a legal regime to regulate the social media, and asserted that public opinion has to be subordinate to the rule of law.

Supreme Court judge JB Pardiwala (Resourced)

“Personal attack on judges for their judgements lead to a dangerous scenario where the judges have to think about what the media thinks, rather than what the law actually says. This puts the rule of law on the burner,” said justice Pardiwala, as he delivered an address at the 2nd Justice HR Khanna Memorial Symposium.

The constitutional courts, the judge said, have always accepted informed dissents and constructive criticisms but debarred personalised agenda-driven attacks on the judges while ignoring the sanctity of respect for the courts.

“Social and digital media is primarily resorted to expressing personalised opinions more against the judges, rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments. This is what is harming the judicial institution and lowering its dignity,” said justice Pardiwala.

He added: “This is where digital and social media needs to be regulated throughout the country to preserve the rule of law under our Constitution...India which cannot be defined as a completely mature or defined democracy, social media is employed frequently to politicise purely legal and constitutional issues.”

Justice Pardiwala has been at the centre of a social media tirade following the strong comments that the bench, which comprised him and justices Surya Kant, made on Friday while rejecting suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s plea to club all the cases against her over her objectionable comment against Prophet Mohammed. The bench had observed that Sharma was “single-handedly responsible for putting the entire nation on fire” and even led to the Udaipur tailor’s killing almost a week ago.

Speaking on Sunday at the event organised by Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow and National Law University, Odisha with the CAN Foundation, justice Pardiwala emphasised that the Supreme Court must decide the cases before it only on the rule of law.

“Judicial verdicts cannot be the reflection of the influence of public opinion...A judicial verdict — right or wrong — is always by a court vested with the powers under the Constitution of India as a court of record. The remedy of any judicial order is clearly not available on digital or social media but before a superior court of law,” added the judge.

He cited the Ayodhya case to buttress the point that what came before the Supreme Court as a land and title dispute garnered “political overtones” by the time verdict was to be delivered.

“It was conveniently forgotten that someday or the other, some judge had to decide the contentious civil dispute which was indisputably the oldest litigation pending in the court of the country, running into 38,000 pages. This is where the heart of any judicial proceeding before the constitutional court may disappear and the judges deciding the dispute may get a bit shaken which is antithetical to the rule of law...This is not healthy for the rule of law,” he underlined.

Criticising the tendency to conduct media trials, justice Pardiwala maintained that trials by digital media are an undue interference in process of justice dispensation, crossing the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ many a times. He rued that immense power of social and digital media platforms is used for precipitating the perception of guilt or innocence of the accused even before trial is over.

“This is also sacrilegious to the rule of law when an issue is hyped or the accused happens to be a big man. Society starts believing that outcome of judicial proceedings ought to be nothing but conviction of the accused with extreme penalty for the accused. Therefore, regulation of digital and social media, especially in the context of sensitive trials which are sub-judice, must be considered by the parliament by introducing regulatory provisions,” said the judge.