Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay has issued a detailed legal notice to Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, alleging that his reported public remarks concerning the consumption of chicken on the banks of the Ganga amounted to a public comment on a pending controversy, hurt the religious sentiments of millions of Hindus, and conveyed a message that could indirectly benefit the accused. The notice further alleges violations of judicial propriety, the Judges’ Code of Ethics, and settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding judicial restraint and public conduct.
GenZ Lawyers Association to Seek Criminal Prosecution of Retired Justice Rohinton F. Nariman Over Speech Allegedly Glorifying Mughal Ruler Akbar and Portraying Him as Greater and More Secular Than Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
Recently, Advocate Upadhyay also filed a writ petition challenging the failure to register an FIR against former Justice Yashwant Varma. According to available information, the matter is likely to be heard next week.
Earlier, Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay had issued a legal notice to the then Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, in relation to one of his public statements. That notice alleged that the remarks made in the context of Ganesh Puja had hurt the religious sentiments of millions of followers of Sanatan Dharma and were inconsistent with the standards of judicial propriety and public restraint expected from a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Apart from this, Advocate Upadhyay has also issued legal notices concerning public statements made by Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Senior Advocate and son of former Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, as well as former Supreme Court Judge Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju.
Several legal experts are of the opinion that the legal notices, petitions, and other legal documents prepared by Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay are generally founded upon an in-depth study of binding Supreme Court precedents and applicable statutory provisions. According to them, for this reason, it is often not easy to effectively answer or legally rebut the issues raised in such notices and petitions.
GenZ Lawyers Association to Seek Criminal Prosecution of Retired Justice Rohinton F. Nariman
Advocate Ayush Tiwari of the GenZ Lawyers Association stated that this is not an isolated matter. He said that the Association is also seriously considering initiating criminal prosecution, along with all other remedies available under law, in relation to a public speech delivered by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, and that the necessary legal process in this regard is already underway. Tiwari alleged that the speech glorified the Mughal ruler Akbar contrary to historical facts and portrayed him as a ruler greater than and more secular than Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. According to him, such a portrayal is inconsistent with historical evidence and has hurt the sentiments of millions of followers and admirers of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Tiwari further alleged that presenting a purportedly distorted version of history from a public platform, thereby creating public misunderstanding and making statements that hurt the religious, cultural, and historical sentiments of different sections of society, raises serious legal issues.
Advocate Ayush Tiwari further stated that the prevailing narrative portraying Akbar as a “great” and “secular” ruler has been publicly challenged by BJP National Spokesperson Dr. Sudhanshu Trivedi. According to Tiwari, Dr. Trivedi, in his public address, referred to various historical sources, documents, and records from Akbar’s reign while claiming that historical evidence exists showing that numerous Hindu temples were demolished during Akbar’s rule.
He further stated that certain individuals allegedly ignore historical sources and propagate misleading and false narratives from public platforms. According to Tiwari, where a person deliberately distorts historical facts, creates public confusion, or disseminates allegedly false claims that hurt the religious, cultural, or historical sentiments of different sections of society, such conduct should, where the ingredients of applicable law are satisfied, invite criminal prosecution and other stringent legal action against the persons responsible.
Link :- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2lVv2CBdBF0
Title :- Sudhanshu Trivedi: अकबर को ‘महान’ बताने पर क्या बोले सुधांशु … Sudhanshu Trivedi: अकबर को ‘महान’ बताने पर क्या बोले सुधांशु त्रिवेदी? #sudhanshutrivedi #zeenews #viralshorts #akhbar
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie, (2014) 12 SCC 344, clarified that Judges do not enjoy any general or unlimited legal immunity in respect of their public statements or acts performed outside the scope of their judicial functions. The legal protection available to Judges is confined to lawful judicial acts performed in the discharge of their judicial duties. In relation to acts or statements made outside the scope of judicial functions, the question of their legal liability may arise in accordance with law in the same manner as it would for any other citizen.
The Constitution Bench reiterated and further clarified this principle in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, observing:
“But we know of no law providing protection for Judges from criminal prosecution. Article 361(2) confers immunity from criminal prosecution only to the President and Governors of States and to no others. Even that immunity has been limited during their term of office. The Judges are liable to be dealt with just the same way as any other person in respect of criminal offence. It is only in taking of bribes or with regard to the offence of corruption the sanction for criminal prosecution is required.”
Thus, the Constitution Bench expressly held that, apart from the President and Governors, no Judge enjoys any general constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution. If a Judge performs an act outside the scope of judicial functions that gives rise to the commission of a criminal offence, the Judge may, in accordance with law, be held accountable in the same manner as any other citizen. Only in cases involving bribery or corruption is prior sanction for prosecution required as prescribed by law.
A significant constitutional controversy has now arisen over a reported public speech delivered by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay has issued a detailed legal notice to Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court in relation to his reported public remarks. The notice alleges that making public comments on a matter that is either pending before a court or is likely to come before a court is inconsistent with judicial propriety, the Judges’ Code of Ethics, the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and the principles governing judicial restraint laid down by the Supreme Court.
The notice is based on a reported statement attributed to Justice Bhuyan to the effect that “there is no law prohibiting the eating of chicken on the banks of the Ganga.” Advocate Upadhyay contends that the controversy was not merely about the consumption of chicken. According to the notice, the underlying dispute also involved allegations relating to the disposal of meat remnants, bones and other waste into the Ganga, environmental pollution, public nuisance, and the religious sentiments of devotees. The notice therefore alleges that reducing the controversy solely to the issue of “eating chicken” presents an incomplete picture of both the facts and the applicable legal issues.
The notice further states that when a Judge of the Supreme Court makes a public statement, it is not ordinarily perceived as a purely personal opinion; rather, it is viewed through the prism of the institutional authority, prestige, and moral standing of the Supreme Court itself. Consequently, Judges are expected to exercise exceptional caution, impartiality, and judicial restraint while making public statements.
Reliance on the Judges’ Code of Ethics
In his legal notice, Advocate Upadhyay has placed detailed reliance upon the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, submitting that these principles are intended not only to preserve judicial independence but also to maintain public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. The notice states that Judges should refrain from making public comments on matters that are sub judice or are reasonably likely to come before the courts, since such remarks may unnecessarily give rise to questions regarding the impartiality and perceived neutrality of the judicial institution.
“Judicial Independence, But Judicial Accountability Too”
The legal notice further states that judicial independence is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. However, it emphasizes that judicial restraint and public accountability are equally indispensable for maintaining the credibility, integrity, and public confidence in the judicial institution. Accordingly, the notice contends that public statements made by Judges must also be assessed against the same constitutional standards of propriety, impartiality, and accountability that the judiciary itself expects from other constitutional authorities.
The notice issued to Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has now triggered a fresh constitutional debate concerning judicial propriety, the permissible limits of public statements by Judges, and judicial accountability.
“Public Remarks by a Supreme Court Judge May Also Influence Subordinate Courts”
Advocate Nilesh Ojha, National President of the Indian Bar Association, stated that when a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court publicly expresses views on a controversial issue or on a matter that is sub judice or is likely to come before the courts, such remarks may naturally have both psychological and institutional implications for Judges serving in subordinate courts. According to him, members of the subordinate judiciary may perceive such public observations as institutional signals, thereby creating a public perception that the complete independence and impartiality of the adjudicatory process in similar cases could be affected.
Mr. Ojha further observed that actual judicial impartiality is of paramount importance, but it is equally essential that the judiciary should be seen to be impartial. For this reason, Judges are expected to exercise the highest degree of judicial restraint while making public statements.
“Attempts to Influence Judicial Proceedings May Raise Issues of Criminal Contempt”
Advocate Nilesh Ojha stated that under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, any act, publication, or statement that interferes with judicial proceedings, or tends to interfere with or obstruct the due administration of justice, may give rise to issues of criminal contempt.
He further referred to Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56, wherein the Bombay High Court observed that public statements, media commentaries, or other public expressions concerning pending judicial proceedings, where they have a tendency to influence or interfere with such proceedings, may raise questions relating to interference with the due administration of justice. He also noted that, on previous occasions, judicial institutions have taken cognizance of public interviews and statements made by Judges themselves.
According to Mr. Ojha, public statements made by sitting Judges of the Supreme Court carry an influence fundamentally different from statements made by ordinary citizens or other public officials. Consequently, in order to preserve judicial propriety, impartiality, and public confidence in the administration of justice, such statements ought to be examined against the highest constitutional standards.