In 2022, legal and political observers witnessed a spate of bizarre pronouncements from ‘learned judges’ at various levels of the judiciary. Taken together, these statements demonstrated and underscored how these judges were drifting away from not only basic social sense and sensibility but also the primary parameters of the official code of conduct, law and rationality. In their urge to express emotions and personal opinions while interpreting the laws, they ended up creating major controversies. Here are some instances listed by The AIDEM Delhi Bureau:

November 23, 2022: A live stream from the Patna High Court exposed the extent of casteism in the judiciary. The video showed a judge mocking reservations while questioning a district Land Acquisition Officer, Arvind Kumar Bharti. After adjourning the case to grant time to the parties to file their affidavits, Justice Sandeep Kumar was heard saying, “Bharti ji, reservation par aaye the naukri me kya? (Bhartiji, Did you get you job through reservation?)”. As Bharti replied in the affirmative, a lawyer in the courtroom commented, “Ab to huzoor samajhiyega baat (now your lordship will understand the matter).” Another lawyer and then the judge could be seen making a few more comments targeting Bharti and his caste amid peals of laughter.

August 12, 2022: A Kozhikode District Sessions Judge S Krishna Kumar created a major controversy while hearing a bail application in a case under Section 354 (A) (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code. Granting anticipatory bail to writer and social activist Civic Chandran in the sexual harassment case, the judge said: “In order to attract Section 354 A (sexual harassment), there must be physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be a sexually coloured remark. The photographs produced with the anticipatory bail application by the accused reveal that the complainant herself is wearing dresses which are sexually provocative. Section 354 A will not prima facie stand against the accused.”

August 11, 2022: Speaking at an event on challenges faced by women in the areas of science, technology, mathematics and business, Pratiba M. Singh, a Delhi High Court judge, described Indian women as “blessed” because scriptures like Manusmriti give a “very respectable position” to them. The comments drew fierce criticism from women’s rights groups. In a statement, the National Federation of Indian Women, said: “Justice Singh seems woefully ignorant of the pathetic condition of women at large, particularly of women from historically marginalised communities, not just in the Indian subcontinent but across the globe.”

June 17, 2022: A Karnataka High Court judge observed in a bail order that it was “unbecoming of a woman to fall asleep after rape”. Justice Krishna Dixit was hearing a case relating to the rape of a 42-year-old Human Resources manager, who was said to have fallen asleep after the rape. “The explanation offered by the complainant _ that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep _ is unbecoming of an Indian woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished,” the judge had observed. However, following a furore, the judge expunged his controversial remarks.

May 25, 2022: The Karnataka High Court gently urged love-struck young people to take parents into confidence while choosing their life partners, failing which they could face karmic consequences. “It is high time for the children to know that the life consists of reaction, resound and reflection. What they are doing to their parents today, they would get back exactly tomorrow,” the Court said in its order, while hearing a habeas corpus petition moved by a woman’s father after she eloped with her boyfriend and married him. Quoting the Manusmriti, the court order said, “Even according to Manusmriti, no person can repay his parents even in 100 years for all the troubles that they go through to give birth to him/her and raise him/her to adulthood. Therefore, always try to do whatever pleases your parents and your teachers, because only then does any religious worship done by you will bear some fruit.”

May 11, 2022: In the Delhi High Court’s split verdict on marital rape, one of the two judges stated that “sex between a wife and a husband is…sacred”. While he said “legitimate expectation of sex” is an “inexorable” aspect of marriage, the other said the “right to withdraw consent at any given point in time forms the core of woman’s right to life and liberty.” The bench, however, held that the case raises a “substantial question of law” which requires a decision from the apex court. Under section 375 of the IPC, sexual acts by a man with his wife who is not a minor, is not considered rape.

March 26, 2022: A Delhi High Court bench while hearing a plea to initiate criminal proceedings against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Parvesh Verma for “hate speech” during 2020 Delhi riots, said: “If you’re saying something with a smile, then there is no criminality, if you’re saying something offensive, then definitely [there is criminality]. You have to check and balance. Otherwise, I think 1,000 FIRs may be lodged against all politicians during elections.”

The case involved speeches by the two BJP leaders during the anti-CAA movement and the Delhi riots that ensued. Thakur had said, “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko (Kill the traitors)”. In his speech, Parvesh Verma had told a rally that the “lakhs of protestors” who have gathered at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh during the anti-CAA movement would enter their homes to “rape their sisters and daughters and kill them”.

February 2022: Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the Bombay High Court resigned after a series of controversial judgements regarding the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘sexual assault’ under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. She was denied an extension of tenure as additional judge and also an appointment as a permanent judge of the High Court. In a slew of judgments passed in January and February 2021, the judge had interpreted the law in such a way that there has to be ‘skin-to-skin contact with sexual intent’ in case of sexual assault against a minor and that ‘holding hands of a minor girl and opening of zip of his pants’ do not fall under the definition of ‘sexual assault’ under the Act.

Report: The AIDEM Delhi Bureau

Read this article inMalayalam,TamilorHindi