SC judge's remarks against Rahul Gandhi immature: Ex-CJ Govind Mathur I Interview

In an interview on Capital Beat with The Federal, former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Govind Mathur, sharply criticised Supreme Court judge Dipankar Dutta's recent oral remarks against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.

The comments, made during a hearing on a criminal defamation case, sparked intense debate around judicial propriety, freedom of speech, and the role of judges in public discourse.

What is your view on Justice Dipankar Dutta’s oral observations against Rahul Gandhi during the court hearing?

It was a very sad, painful, and irresponsible statement by the court. When a judge is sitting in court, there is no individuality. His voice becomes the voice of the court. Such comments, especially without foundation, are unacceptable. A judge is not required to make such statements while performing judicial duties. This was an irresponsible act by a judge of the apex court.

Why do you think he made such remarks when they could have been easily avoided?

I can’t say what was in his mind. But I stand by what I said earlier: it was an irresponsible and immature act.

Sitting in the apex court, a judge must recognise that every word he speaks carries weight and reflects the authority of the institution. This kind of conduct is not acceptable, not even from a judicial magistrate, let alone a Supreme Court judge. He must put aside personal philosophies and follow only the Constitution and the law.

Also read: BJP labels Rahul Gandhi 'China Guru' after SC chides him

Are you hinting at any ideological leanings influencing Justice Dutta’s statements?

No, I’m not suggesting that. But even if a judge personally follows a philosophy or holds certain views, when seated in court, he must be guided solely by constitutional provisions and law. His responsibility is to remain neutral and uphold the dignity of the judicial system. When judges speak irresponsibly, they harm the institution as a whole.

We've already seen public criticism not just of the individual judge but of the judiciary as an institution.

Do you think his remarks are an attempt to curb freedom of expression?

No, I wouldn’t go that far. I believe it was plain immaturity. If a politician raises issues in Parliament or on social media, that's well within his rights. The court should restrict itself to examining the merits of the case. A politician can raise questions on any platform available to him. Asking why a matter was raised on social media instead of Parliament is irrelevant.

Isn't it hard to believe that a Supreme Court judge can be immature? Could this have been deliberate?

If it was deliberate, that’s even more serious. Sometimes, personal belief overrides institutional responsibility.

Judges must understand that when they speak from the bench, it's not as individuals but as representatives of the court. Immaturity is not expected at that level, but unfortunately, it can happen. And that’s when damage occurs.

How should journalists view and analyse such statements? Should they criticise judges?

If these remarks are not part of the official record, they are open to criticism. A judge's personal or political leanings have no place in court proceedings. As a journalist, if something is said in court but not recorded officially, it's fair to question and criticise it. That’s part of a healthy democracy. But yes, criticism should be valid and responsible.

Also read: How SC reprieve to Rahul in China remark case got dwarfed by judge’s ‘political’ rebuke

How should such remarks be prevented from recurring? Should the CJI step in?

Officially, the Chief Justice of India or senior judges may not step in, but informally, they may advise their colleague.

Ultimately, it is democracy, public discourse, and journalists who hold the judge accountable. No one can use contempt of law to silence legitimate and responsible criticism. We must uphold the settled traditions of judicial conduct.

Justice Dutta questioned how Rahul Gandhi knew that 2,000 sq km of territory was occupied by China. What does this reflect?

We don't know the precise facts. Media reports say one thing; the government says another. But for the court to raise such a question without it being relevant to the case is inappropriate. Judges should not pose irrelevant or absurd questions. They must confine themselves to the merits of the case.

Did Justice Dutta undermine the role of the Leader of the Opposition?

Yes. Rahul Gandhi is not just a Congress leader; he is the Leader of the Opposition, holding a statutory office. He is entitled to raise issues in Parliament or in any public platform. Even an ordinary citizen has the right to raise questions in national interest.

Courts should not question their right to do so or ask them to prove their patriotism.

Justice Dutta also said that a "true Indian" would not say such things. How do you respond?

I would ask him to define what a "true Indian" is. Merely raising difficult or uncomfortable questions does not undermine someone's patriotism. Such sweeping statements from a judge are uncalled for and dangerous. They de-legitimise valid public concerns and chill political expression.

What about the larger pattern of cases and commentary targeting Rahul Gandhi?

I won’t comment on political rhetoric, but as the Leader of the Opposition, he commands the faith of millions. He must be taken seriously, and his words carry weight. He represents a constitutional institution and should be treated with the respect due to that office.

What lessons should judges, especially younger ones, take from this controversy?

Judges must think 100 times before uttering a word. We live in an era where every statement is recorded, interpreted, and scrutinised. Even oral remarks must be made with care. If a judge feels strongly about something, let them record it in their judgment or speak from a non-judicial platform.

Careless statements severely damage the judiciary’s credibility.

Do oral observations risk becoming political tools?

Yes, sometimes. During heated arguments, oral observations can happen in the flow of discussion. If they are made in good faith, they should not be used politically. But if they are irresponsible or deliberate, then they become fair game for criticism and may be misused. What happened in this case is serious and deserves scrutiny.

The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.