Referring to any part of India as “Pakistan” is fundamentally contrary to the country’s territorial integrity, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday about statements made by a Karnataka High Court judge earlier this month, Bar and Bench reported.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy also said that judges and lawyers must ensure that their personal biases were not reflected while discharging their duties.

Two video clips showing High Court Justice V Srishananda making controversial comments about a woman advocate and the Muslim community during two separate hearings earlier this month were widely shared online in recent days.

At one of the hearings, he was heard referring to the Muslim-dominated locality of Gori Palya in Bengaluru as “Pakistan”.

In another video, he was heard saying to a woman lawyer that she seemed to know so much about the opposite party in a litigation that she could even reveal the colour of their undergarments.

The Supreme Court took cognisance of the two video clips on September 20. On Monday, the judge expressed regret for his comments, saying they had been made unintentionally and were not meant to hurt any person or section of the society

On Wednesday, the bench, while hearing the matter, said: “We can’t call any part of the territory of India as Pakistan because that fundamentally is contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation”.

It added such a “casual observation” may indicate personal biases, especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. “Thus, one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments.”

The court added: “We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that responsibilities entrusted on all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution.”

The court said that observations made by judges could have a wide impact in the era of social media, according to Bar and Bench. Judges therefore must be aware of their predispositions in order to be able to deliver justice impartially, it added.

“The prevalence and reach of social media has included wide reporting of court proceedings,” it said. “All parties, judges, lawyers, litigants must be aware that proceedings reach audiences who are well beyond the physical precincts of the court and thus all must be aware of the wider impact of observations on community at large.”

The court also said that judges should be guided by the values that were enshrined in the Constitution, Live Law reported.

“The heart and soul of judging is the need to be impartial and fair,” the bench said. “…it is necessary for every stakeholder to understand that the only values which must guide judicial decision-making are those which are enshrined in the Constitution of India.”

The bench closed the proceedings initiated in the matter after noting that the judge had apologised for his statements.

In his apology on Monday, Srishananda claimed that the verbal remarks he had made during the judicial proceedings had been reported out of context on social media. He added that the comment he had made to the woman advocate was not intended towards her, but towards her client.

In connection with the matter, the Advocates Association Bengaluru on Monday also moved the Karnataka High Court demanding that social media users, media agencies and the public be restrained from using live stream videos of court proceedings.

The association also sought directives to platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and X to immediately delete videos and clips that have been created using live streams of court proceedings.