‘Don’t want to embarrass those who helped me’: Eshwarappa finally decides to resign

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda during a recent court hearing.

Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to CJI D Y Chandrachud's house for Ganesha puja celebrations has raised doubts in the mind of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, who questioned whether he would deliver 'justice' in the ongoing case the party has in the Supreme Court, given that the PM is the other party in the case.

Speaking to ANI, Raut said "Ganpathi festival is going on, people visit each other's houses. I don't have info regarding how many houses PM visited so far...but PM went to CJI's house and they together performed 'Aarti'."

He said that a custodian of the Constitution meeting politicians could raise doubts in the minds of people.

"In our case, other party is the central govt...Chief Justice should distance himself from this case because his relation with the other party in the case is openly visible," Raut continued.

He also raised questions if the CJI be able to give them justice in the case. "We are getting dates after dates and an illegal govt is going on...Shiv Sena and NCP were broken in such a way...we are not getting justice and PM Modi is taking a lot of interest in the illegal govt of Maharashtra, to save them," the Sena (UBT) leader continued.

Raut alleged that a doubt had been formed in Maharashtra's mind given the 'bond' the PM and the CJI seem to share.

In a huge relief for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Haryana elections, the Supreme Court has granted him bail in the Delhi excise policy case. The AAP chief will now be released from jail, six months after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21. He was subsequently arrested by the CBI in June.

Here are some of the Supreme Court's key quotes:

•    Perception also matters and CBI must dispel the notion of being a caged parrot and must show it is an uncaged parrot. CBI should be like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. 

•    "No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their application recorded reasons as to why they deemed necessary. There is no violation of Section 41A (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure," said Justice Surya Kant.

•    Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, however, noted, "CBI did not feel the need to arrest him (Mr Kejriwal) even though he was interrogated in March 2023 and it was only after his ED arrest was stayed that CBI became active and sought custody of Mr Kejriwal, and thus felt no need of arrest for over 22 months. Such action by the CBI raises serious question on the timing of the arrest and such an arrest by CBI was only to frustrate the bail granted in ED case."

•    Submission of additional solicitor general cannot be accepted that appellant has to first approach trial court for grant of bail. Process of trial should not end up becoming a punishment. Belated arrest by CBI is not justified.

•    Regarding building a public narrative of a case... Arvind Kejriwal shall not make any public comments about this case and be present for all hearings before trial court unless exempted.