Bangalore: The Supreme Court on Wednesday closed proceedings initiated against a Karnataka High Court judge for controversial remarks made during judicial hearings, in which he referred to Gori Palya, a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru, as "Pakistan." The Court condemned the remark but accepted the judge's apology and chose to drop the case.

“No one can call any part of India as Pakistan. It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation,” observed a five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. The Court stressed the importance of judges exercising restraint, especially in an era of live-streamed court proceedings.

The controversy erupted after videos surfaced on social media showing Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda making inappropriate remarks, including comments directed at a woman advocate. These videos ignited public outrage, with prominent legal figures, including senior advocate Indira Jaising, calling for the judge to undergo gender sensitization training. Jaising shared one of the videos on her social media platform, urging action against the judge’s behavior.

On September 20, the Supreme Court sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar regarding the videos. In response, Justice Srishananda clarified that his comments were unintentional and expressed regret if his remarks had caused offense.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the judge had already apologized for his comments, urging that the case be closed. Accepting the apology, the bench, while issuing a caution, said the matter would be dropped in the “interest of justice” and the “institutional respect” of the High Court.

The Court also issued a warning against "casual remarks" from judges, particularly when they might reflect individual bias against specific communities or genders, as such comments could be misinterpreted and create the perception of prejudice.

Earlier, on September 21, the Karnataka High Court issued an interim order restraining social media platforms from sharing or editing court proceedings live-streamed on its YouTube channel, following a petition from the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court closed the matter, it reiterated the need for judicial officers to be cautious in their remarks and to ensure that their conduct reflects fairness and impartiality.