Unfair to say we have pro-government judges: Supreme Court bench

Supreme Court of India (File)

A hearing in the Supreme Court Thursday on a petition dealing with irresponsible remarks by public functionaries on matters under investigation turned into a debate on limits to free speech with senior advocate Harish Salve advocating control of social media and Justice D Y Chandrachud taking exception to a senior lawyer’s remarks which suggested that the top court was being dominated by pro-government judges.

Without naming anyone, Justice Chandrachud said: “The president of a Bar Association was on TV saying Supreme Court is dominated by pro-government judges. Let them come and sit in court for even a day and see how the government is hauled everyday in court.”

Late last month, after Justice Jayant Patel of Karnataka High Court resigned following his transfer to Allahabad High Court, senior advocate and former Supreme Court Bar Association president Dushyant Dave, appearing on NDTV, made remarks targeting the Supreme Court collegium.

Justice Chandrachud was one of three judges on a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, hearing a complaint against former Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan who, according to the petitioner, had described the July 2016 gangrape of a woman and her daughter in Bulandshahr as a “political conspiracy”.

Salve, who is an amicus curiae in the case, said people holding high offices like ministers cannot make irresponsible statements on matters under investigation. At this, CJI Misra wondered aloud whether the court must restrict the issue to criminal matters. Salve replied that it should apply to all matters sub-judice.

Salve cited instances of the media carrying unverified tapes and claiming that they do so in public interest. “Can a newspaper publish a tape and say we do not vouch for its authenticity,” Salve asked, and sought to know what happens to the privacy of the person so defamed.

This brought the discussion to the question of rights of citizens vis-a-vis private citizens. Justice Chandrachud said, “In the privacy case, we said dangers to privacy do not arise only from the state, but in a globally interconnected world, it arises from private parties too”.

Justice Chandrachud also referred to comments that appear below online news reports on observations made by judges during hearings and said even the courts are criticised. Salve said, “It’s a public domain. They have to carry the repercussions.”

He said he was subjected to abuse on social media when he appeared in a case related to a Christian medical college. “I was arguing a case for a Christian medical college. The kind of abuses I received… I deleted my Twitter account,” Salve said, adding “there have to be some rules”.

Senior advocate Fali S Nariman, also an amicus curiae in the matter, said social media had its share of problems. He said he did not have any social media presence but warned that controls “should not kill our sense of humour”.

Intervening in the debate, CJI Misra said “we are not holding a media trial”.

The bench, which also included Justice A M Khanwilkar, referred the question of people holding high offices making irresponsible statements to a Constitution Bench. Both Nariman and Salve agreed. The bench said that though some questions had already been framed, the Constitution Bench would be free to frame its own questions and answer them.