'Our shoulders broad enough': SC on social media commentary after electoral bonds order

The CJI, however, said the court is only concerned about enforcing its directions issued in the verdict.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said its shoulders are broad enough to tackle social media commentary as the Centre and State Bank of India raised the issue of a barrage of criticism on the top court's verdict in the electoral bonds case.

"We are only concerned about directions which we issued…as judges, we decide according to the Constitution. We are governed by the rule of law. We are also subject-matter of comment on social media and press but surely as an institution our shoulders are broad enough. Our court has an institutional role to play…that is the only job,” the CJI D Y Chandrachud-led bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Appearing for the Centre during the hearing in Electoral Bonds case, Mehta said, "The judges sit in silos and you are in kind of ivory tower not in negative sense of the term but what we know here you never come to know, and the way in which your judgement is playing out and something you must be informed as highest court of the country."

"Our case was, we want to curb the black money. A criminal may have made a donation, but ultimately the donation comes in white economy, and we could not persuade the court," he said.

Referring to the Electoral Bonds judgement, he said now “witch hunting will be by political parties….now witch hunting has started at some other level not at governmental level”.

He said that the SBI's application before the court came on March 11, and since then some have started giving press interviews to deliberately embarrass the court.

“A barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment started during these two days, now it is open field. Statistics can be twisted in any manner the person wants…based on twisted statistics any kind of posts are being made. I know the court cannot control that," Mehta said.

He continued that his job is to inform the court that something else is playing out, which neither the court nor the scheme intended.

"We thought this information will help the voter to take a call whether to vote in favour of a particular party and not," he said.

Sidestepping the concerns, the CJI, however, said, "Very recently, I was asked about a critique on a judgment, not mentioning which judgment. I said that it is not part of the role of a judge, the least constitutional court, or even a civil judge to defend their views. Once we declare a judgement, it becomes public property. It is the property of the nation."