Supreme Court Judge Justice JB Pardiwala, who was part of a bench that lambasted suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma for her Prophet remarks, on Sunday criticised “personal attacks” made on judges for their judgments. “Personal attacks on judges for their judgements lead to a dangerous scenario where judges have to think about what the media thinks instead of what the law really thinks,” Justice Pardiwala said.
The judge’s sharp remarks come two days after an uproar on social media over the Supreme Court’s strong oral observations against Sharma. The apex court had said that her “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire” and she should apologise to the country.
Speaking at the second Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium, the judge further said that in India, social media is invariably used to “politicise purely legal and constitutional issues”. “In India which cannot be defined as a completely mature or defined democracy, social media is employed frequently to politicise purely legal and constitutional issues,” he said.
“Rule of law is the most distinguishing feature of Indian democracy, public opinion has to be subordinate to rule of law. We’re the guardian of rights and have to tell people things they don’t like… Judicial verdicts cannot be reflections of the influence of public opinion,” the judge said while speaking on the subject of Vox Populi vs. Rule of Law.
He said the trials by digital media are an undue interference in the justice dispensation system. “Crossing that ‘Lakshman rekha’ many times, this is especially more worrisome, the judge, who has recently been elevated to the top court, said at the event organised by Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow & National Law University, Odisha along with the Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation).
Digital and social media need to be mandatorily regulated in the country to preserve the rule of law under our Constitution…, he said.
It requires extreme judicial craftsmanship to walk the tightrope between the two that is where people think log kya kahenge, log kya sochenge‘ (What will people say, what will people think) is an enigma which haunts each and every judge whenever he is to pen down a judgement, he said. Talking about digital and social media, he said these sections possess only the half-truth and start scrutinising the judicial process.
What the SC bench had said
On Friday, a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Pardiwala severely reprimanded Sharma for her comments against the Prophet, saying her “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire” and that she is “singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country”.
The apex court also refused to entertain Sharma’s plea for clubbing of FIRs lodged in various states against her for the remark. The bench held that the comment was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities.
“She actually has a loose tongue and has made all kinds of irresponsible statements on TV and set the entire country on fire. Yet, she claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing… She should have immediately apologised for her comments to the whole country,” the court said.
“She has a threat or she has become a security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country this lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” the bench said when Sharma’s lawyer Maninder Singh pointed out that she was facing threats to life.
Sharma’s comments during a TV debate had sparked countrywide protests and drew sharp reactions from several quarters, and also from many Gulf countries. The BJP subsequently suspended her from the party’s primary membership.
(With PTI inputs)
Read all the Latest News, Breaking News, watch Top Videos and Live TV here.
Comments
0 comment