Civil rights groups and activists have strongly condemned the objectionable remarks made by Karnataka High Court Justice V Srishananda, terming them “prejudiced and unconstitutional.” Activists from several groups, including the People's Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) - Karnataka, All India Lawyers Association For Justice (AILAJ), have called on the Supreme Court and High Court to take swift corrective measures to restore public trust in the judiciary.
Justice Srishananda stirred a controversy by referring to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan", in a pejorative manner, during a discussion on road safety. He said, “Go to the Mysore Road flyover. Every auto rickshaw has 10 people. It (rule) is not applicable because the Mysore road flyover until up to the market from Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality. Keep whatever strict officer you want. Let me see if they can get them to deboard (the vehicle).”
In another incident, the same judge made a misogynistic remark against a woman advocate during a court hearing. When arguing a case, the lawyer mistakenly responded to a question intended for the opposing counsel. Responding to this, Justice Srishananda commented: “Wait ma! You seem to know everything about him? If I ask you tomorrow morning, you will tell me what colour under-garments he is wearing.”
PUCL-Karnataka and AILAJ said that these comments violate the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which set standards for judicial ethics, including impartiality, integrity, and respect for all individuals.
They emphasised that judges must avoid any manifestation of bias or prejudice, particularly when it relates to gender, religion, or other irrelevant grounds. “The statements made by Justice Srishananda display unconstitutional animus on grounds of gender and religion. Such remarks undermine the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values and damage public trust in the legal system,” the groups stated.
They urged the judiciary to adhere to its ethical standards, stressing that judges wield significant authority but must not misuse their power through offensive comments or undignified behaviour. “The members of the legal fraternity, and the public at large, expect deep circumspection and immediate remedial measures by the High Court and the Supreme Court, which they are duty-bound to undertake as in the interests of democracy and the preservation of constitutional morality.”
Jagruta Nagarikaru Karnataka – a civil society group comprising writers and activists like K Marulasiddappa, SG Siddaramaiah, Vimala K – echoed similar concerns. In their statement, they described the judge’s comments as “deeply disturbing” and called for vigilance to prevent the erosion of pluralistic values in India.
“We are shocked to hear that during a High Court hearing, a judge reportedly said that the Muslim community in Bengaluru is not India but Pakistan. Ours is a country that believes in the equality of all religions. With rising incidents of atrocities targeting religious minorities, particularly Muslims, we fear that such statements from the judiciary could further harm communal harmony,” the statement read.
The statement also referred to an instance where Delhi High Court's judge Pratiba M Singh had said that Indian women were "blessed" because scriptures like Manusmriti give a "very respectable position" to them. “It is shocking that the above alarming incident has been reported in the judiciary within a few weeks after another judge praising Manusmrithi. Puja festivals that should be held on a personal basis become a public propaganda tool and Prime Ministers participating in personal Ganesha Puja at the house of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, going beyond the boundaries of the wish that those in the judiciary should stay away from political figures, and sharing it as a video, all these have raised concerns that the foundation of pluralistic India is loosening,” the statement read.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, on Friday, September 20, took suo motu cognizance of the controversial comments made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has sought a report from the Karnataka HC on the matter.