Yearender 2024: A look at statements made by judges which made headlines

Here we list a few instances.

Calm, Compose, witty and wise are words that describe lawyers and judges most often, and the reason behind using the phrase 'most often' and not 'always' is what this article is about—Moments in 2024 when judges remarks created headlines.

First suo motu intervention of 2024

In 2024, former Calcutta High Court judge Abhijit Gangopadhyay caught everyone's attention after he announced that he would be resigning and joining the BJP. Even as a judge, Gangopadhyay often found himself amid controversies. The Supreme Court made its first suo motu intervention of 2024 after Calcutta High Court's single-judge bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay declared a division bench's order illegal. The unprecedented development took place after the larger bench stayed Justice Gangopadhyay's direction for a CBI probe into irregularities in MBBS admissions in West Bengal. In an order on January 25, Justice Gangopadhyay had termed the division bench order as illegal. Justice Gangopadhyay said, "It is clear from the order of the division bench that when it was stayed there was neither any memo of appeal nor any impugned order before the court."

At another occasion, he had also been reprimanded by the Election Commission for making misogynistic comments on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Lower than high and more supreme than reality

In a "scandalous" statement by Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Supreme Court for staying a contempt proceeding initiated by him, the HC Justice attacked the apex court for presuming that it is more supreme than it really is.

"Seen at a psychological plane, this type of order is actuated, primarily, by two factors, firstly a tendency to avoid owning responsibility of the consequence which such an order, in all likelihood, is bound to produce, under a pretence that an order of stay of contempt proceedings does not adversely affect anybody, and secondly, a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more 'Supreme' than it actually is and to presume a High Court to be lesser 'High' than it constitutionally is," he had said in his July 17 order. "Pained" by this, the top court took suo motu cognisance of the matter, and said that neither the apex court nor high courts were supreme and supremacy is actually of the Constitution of India and urged the justice to exercise greater restraint during proceedings in the age of live streaming.

VHP speech by Allahabad HC judge

Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav stirred controversy this year after his remarks on how India should function on the basis of wishes of its majority caught momentum.

In his remarks, Justice Yadav had said, that India will function as per the wishes of the majority community, and that the welfare and happiness of the majority overrides those of others

"I have no hesitation in stating that this is Hindustan, and this country will function according to the wishes of the majority living here. This is the law. It is not about speaking as a High Court Judge; rather, the law operates in accordance with the bahusankyak (majority)," Justice Yadav had said.

The top court on December 10 took note of news reports over the statements and sought a report from the Allahabad High Court on the issue.

He was asked to appear before the apex court on December 17 where he was asked to put forth his version on the statements made.

The SC Collegium led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, however, was apparently not convinced with Justice Yadav's explanation that media has reported his statements out of context.

Alleged remarks against woman lawyer

The Supreme Court in September took suo motu cognisance of alleged objectionable comments made by a Karnataka High Court judge Vedavyasachar Srishananda against a woman lawyer during court proceedings. The judge had been seen to have made gender-insensitive comments against a woman lawyer in a separate matter.

In a viral video of the court proceedings, the judge was seen reprimanding a woman lawyer on Thursday and reportedly made some objectionable comments.

Justice Srishananda had purportedly also referred to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan".

Senior advocate Indira Jaising took to 'X' to urge the CJI to take suo motu judicial note of the comments.

A five-judge bench comprising senior judges, including Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, assembled to take cognisance of the comments made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the high court during judicial proceedings.

The bench sought a report from the high court on the comments of the judge.

"Attention has been drawn to media reports to the comments made by Justice...of Karnataka High Court during the court proceedings. We request the Karnataka High Court to submit report after seeking instructions from the Chief Justice of the high court," the CJI said.

(With PTI, DHNS inputs)