Remember the distinction between judging and judgmental!” the Supreme Court emphasized while addressing High Court judges.
Recently, the Supreme Court expressed that Justice G Jayachandran of the Madras High Court should have refrained from commenting on Justice GR Swaminathan in the context of the Division Bench’s split verdict on Youtuber Savukku Shankar’s preventive detention.
The case arose when Justice Jayachandran was assigned as the third judge to resolve a split decision between Justice Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji. Justice Swaminathan had nullified Shankar’s detention, while Justice Balaji argued that Tamil Nadu Police should be allowed to file a counter affidavit first.
Justice Swaminathan mentioned in open court that two influential individuals had warned him against passing orders. Following this, Justice Jayachandran criticized the split verdict as an anomaly and suggested that Justice Swaminathan should have recused himself due to claims of external pressure.
Justice Jayachandran remarked that the reasons behind Justice Swaminathan’s decision were troubling and hinted at a personal bias, given the serious allegations of attempted influence through intermediaries.
Last week, during a hearing related to Shankar’s arrest, the Supreme Court was informed of Justice Jayachandran’s remarks. A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while ordering Shankar’s interim release, noted:
“We cannot leave without sounding a note of caution. The learned Judge of the High Court in its order dated 06.06.2024 has made some observations on his brother Judge which should have been best avoided. It is always necessary for us to remember the distinction between judging and judgmental!”
