Judges These Days Seeking to be Headline Grabbers: Salve | Exclusive

New Delhi: Harish Salve, former Solicitor General, Senior Advocate in Supreme Court and King's Counsel expressed concern over what he perceives as a troubling trend in India’s judiciary. When asked by Republic Media Network’s Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami whether judges are engaging in headline-grabbing commentary, Harish Salve responded, “Yes, they are rather than adhering strictly to the delivery of well-reasoned judgments.”

Salve spoke that the shift in judicial discourse has led to unnecessary controversies and confusion. 

He pointed out that this phenomenon has resulted in public misperceptions, forcing the judiciary to clarify its stance on sensitive issues. “Why did the court have to go on the backfoot and clarify that they are not here to play the role of the Opposition? Was this perception created by a judgment, or did it arise from the offhand comments made by judges during hearings?” Salve questioned.

A Call for Judicial Restraint and Responsibility

Salve shed light on the need for judicial restraint, especially in the age of social media, where even a stray comment can spiral into controversy. 

“Judges have stopped speaking as much through judgments as they do in comments. It does create embarrassment and problems on the ground,” he said. 

He criticized the current discourse in the Supreme Court, comparing it with the decorum two decades ago. “The vocabulary and discourse in the Supreme Court were never like this 20 years ago. That has to be brought back, that has to be corrected,” Salve said.

The Role of Judges in a Democracy

Salve said judges should be neutral, standing apart from political or ideological battles. He stated that judges must focus on interpreting the law and resolving disputes rather than engaging in debates that could be perceived as politically charged. 

“Judges must have greater responsibility because they don’t join the battlefield. They stand away from the battlefield to judge who’s got it right,” Salve said.

He further critiqued what he described as “gratuitous questions” directed at the government or the opposition during hearings, labeling them as unnecessary distractions from the core legal issues at hand.