The Supreme Court on Thursday took strong exception to the suggestion that some judges are "pro-government". Justice DY Chandrachud, who was part of the three-judge bench along with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar, suggested that members of the bar should sit in the courtroom and attend hearing to see how the top court functions.
"The former SC bar association president said on electronic media that the SC was full of pro-govt judges. That is not true. Someone has to just come and sit in court one day to see in how many cases the government gets hauled over the coals in favour of citizens' rights," Justice Chandrachud remarked.
The judge was possibly referring to an "open letter" written to the "pro-government" judges of the top court by Asim Pandya, president of the Gujarat High Court Bar Association. In his letter, Pandya asked SC judges to uphold the constitution instead of supporting the dispensation.
The bench was also upset with the alleged statement of former SCBA president Dushyant Dave that many of its judges are "pro-government". The bench also expressed concern over the trend of posting uncharitable comments, trolls and aggressive reactions on social media platforms on every issue, including judges and judicial proceedings.
SC takes exception to judges being dubbed 'pro-govt'
Hearing a matter pertaining to inappropriate remarks made by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan in connection with the Bulandshahr gangrape case, the bench talked of the need to lay down a law to regulate comments made by individuals holding public office or a person in authority, which has now been referred to a constitution bench.
Senior advocate Harish Salve and jurist Fali Nariman, both amicus curiae in the matter, also suggested a need to regulate content on social media.
"I deleted my twitter account after I realised it can be too abusive. Some of the extremely offensive reactions and comments are really disturbing", Salve said, while Nariman said he was fortunate enough not to have an account at all.
"That's why I feel it is better to stay away from all this. I am in a reasonably happy state because I don't have a Twitter account," Nariman quipped.
The bench said that one of the observations made during the hearing on the Rohingya matter was projected as if an order had been delivered and it became a subject matter of debate.
At an earlier hearing, Nariman had submitted five questions of law for the then attorney general to respond.
Meanwhile, the top court today referred to a constitution bench questions like whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while airing views in a sensitive matter which is under investigation.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}