Answer

Introduction

In recent years, several oral remarks made during judicial hearings have triggered intense public and media scrutiny despite not forming part of final orders. The Supreme Court in the M.R. Vijayabhaskar Case reiterated that a court speaks authoritatively through its written judgments, raising important questions about how informal judicial comments influence public trust and institutional credibility.

Body

Oral observations carry limited institutional authority

• Formal Distinction: Only written judgments and signed orders represent the official institutional position of courts.
  Eg: In Chief Election Commissioner vs M.R. Vijayabhaskar (2021), the Supreme Court distinguished oral observations from formal judicial orders.
• No Binding Value: Oral remarks generally lack precedential or enforceable legal authority.
• Spontaneous Nature: Bench observations often arise during arguments and may not reflect final judicial reasoning.
• Institutional Convention: Judicial ethics require judges to maintain restraint despite the absence of explicit constitutional regulation of speech.
  Eg: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) emphasised dignity and propriety in judicial conduct.
• Clarificatory Scope: Judges may later clarify oral remarks, indicating their non-final character.

Negative impact of intemperate remarks

• Credibility Erosion: Harsh or insulting remarks can weaken public confidence in judicial impartiality and dignity.
• Media Amplification: Oral remarks often gain greater public attention than final judgments through media reporting.
  Eg: In M.R. Vijayabhaskar (2021), the Election Commission objected to oral comments linking it to “murder” during COVID-19 election management.
• Perception Bias: Aggressive remarks may create an impression that judges have prejudged issues before final adjudication.
• Institutional Damage: Undignified courtroom language can reduce respect for judicial institutions as constitutional guardians.
  Eg: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) stresses that judges must preserve institutional integrity through restrained conduct.
• Professional Harm: Unverified or excessive remarks can unfairly stigmatise individuals or professions.

Positive impact of intemperate remarks

• Public Attention: Strong remarks can draw urgent attention to institutional irregularities or misconduct.
  Eg: Concerns regarding fake degrees and unethical professional practices among advocates.
• Moral Signalling: Sharp language may reflect judicial intolerance toward corruption or abuse within institutions.
• Judicial Candour: Frank observations can demonstrate that judges are not detached from social realities.
  Eg: During the COVID-19 crisis, strong judicial remarks pushed governments toward better oxygen and healthcare management.
• Corrective Pressure: Critical oral observations can compel administrative authorities to respond quickly.
• Transparency Perception: Open courtroom exchanges may enhance public visibility into judicial thinking processes.

Conclusion

Although oral observations do not constitute binding judicial opinion, they carry immense symbolic authority in public discourse. Judicial restraint, therefore, remains essential to preserving institutional dignity, constitutional legitimacy, and citizens’ trust in courts as impartial guardians of justice.

DOWNLOAD PDF