Accepting apology from Karnataka High Court judge for controversial comments, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that every judge should be aware of own predispositions and the heart and soul of judging is the need to be impartial and fair. The apex court’s observation came while hearing a suo motu over objectionable comments made by Karnataka High Court judge V Srishananda during court proceedings. The apex court also did not agree with the restriction of online streaming of the High Court proceedings.

By closing the proceedings, the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said it is necessary for every stakeholder in the institution to understand that the only values that must guide judicial decision making are those that are enshrined in the Constitution. “At the same time, it is important that every judge should be aware of their own predispositions. The heart and soul of judging is the need to be impartial and fair,” the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, said.

“Intrinsic to that process is the need for every judge to be aware of our own predispositions because it is only on the basis of such awareness that we can truly be faithful to the fundamental obligation of the judge to deliver objective and fair justice,” the court said. The bench cautioned courts against making comments that may be construed as “misogynistic” or directed at a particular “gender or community”.

It closed the proceedings initiated over the alleged objectionable comments made by the judge, noting that he had tendered an apology during the open-court proceedings in the high court on September 21.

In its order dictated in the courtroom, the bench said the observations that it would make would be consistent with the need to preserve the judicial system’s dignity. Referring to the social media’s reach and the live-streaming of court proceedings, the bench emphasised that this places an added responsibility on the judges, lawyers and litigants, who appear in courts in person, to conduct proceedings conscious of the wider impact of casual observations on the community at large.

“But should I tell you, the answer to sunlight is more sunlight. Not to suppress what happens in the courts,” the CJI observed, adding that the answer was not to close doors and shut everything down.