several retired judges, bureaucrats and armed forces’ veterans have released a statement seeking recall of the remarks made by a Supreme Court bench on the Nupur Sharma case. In the meantime, Justice JB Pardiwala, one of the judges of the vacation bench which dealt with the Nupur Sharma case, warned that agenda-driven campaigns through social media are adversely impacting matters relating to law and Constitution. As per the SC judge, constructive and critical appraisals of the judgements are permitted in democracy but personalised attacks on judges are harming the judicial institutions and lowering their dignity. He emphasised the need for the law to stop interference in the judicial proceedings. Four important elements of this controversy need to be examined as per the constitutional provisions and apex court judgements. ORAL REMARKS BY SC JUDGES WERE UNWARRANTED The Constitution of India gives immense power as well as places onerous responsibilities on the Supreme Court. Open court proceedings ensure that the judiciary is subject to public scrutiny. Judges are expected to act in accordance with law, and also exercise caution while making observations in open courts which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. While dismissing the petition of suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, the Supreme Court bench said that her remarks set the country on fire and she was a threat to the security of the nation. The judges may be right in observing that leaders often resort to controversies to advance their political or nefarious agendas. At the same time, judicial restraint should be exercised while using strong language to criticise any individual or institution. These remarks are also criticised on the ground that it is not reflected in the final two-line order. Schooling in Covid Era: An Opportunity for Young Students to Become Better Global Citizens Border Villages in Tibet: Why India Should be Wary of China’s New ‘Eyes and Ears’ in Himalaya Only operative part, i.e. Ratio Decidendi of the judgement, is binding as per Article 141 of the Constitution. While other written statements in the judgement, which are called obiter dicta, are neither authoritative nor binding. However oral remarks are not part of the official court order so it has no judicial value. Justice DY Chandrachud in the Election Commission of India judgement stated: “Language both on the bench and in judgements, must comport with judicial propriety. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to the constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity.” Those who are criticising oral remarks are of the view that blaming Nupur’s comments could be seen as judicial approval for the violent protests, arson and gruesome murder of a tailor in Rajasthan. Despite no judicial value, critics add, these observations can be further used for mobilising the radical and terror impulse.