Nupur Sharma reprimanded Justice Pardiwala: Supreme Court judge Justice Pardiwala has expressed concern about personal attacks on judges on social media. Justice Pardiwala has said that instead of criticizing court decisions on social media, personal attacks are made on judges. Due to this, such a dangerous environment is created where the judges instead of thinking about the law, start worrying about the media. This is not good for the judiciary.

Justice Pardiwala was speaking at an event organized in the memory of former Supreme Court judge Justice HR Khanna. Justice Pardiwala was a member of the Supreme Court bench which on July 1 had strongly reprimanded Nupur Sharma for her remarks about Prophet Mohammad. There is a lot of discussion going on on social media about the court's stand on that day.

Justice Pardiwala said that the trial run on social media unnecessarily interferes with the work of the judiciary. It crosses the Lakshmanrekha many times and then becomes a problem when half an incomplete lie is served through it. People on social media have half-incomplete information, they are not even aware of the judicial process, its limitations. If a decision is wrong, then an appeal can be made against it in the higher court. Social media is not the solution. Legal issues also become political due to social and digital media. A civil case like Ayodhya is an example of this. He said that Parliament should consider how to regulate social and digital media during the trial of serious cases.

Justice Pardiwala said that it is difficult to strike a balance between the rule of law and the will of the people. Even when judges write decisions that have far-reaching effects on society, they also think about what people will say. But I have been of the belief that the rule of law is paramount. There can be no exception to this. What is the opinion of the people or the majority, it does not matter in judicial decisions. Court decisions should not be influenced by the opinion of the majority.

Justice Pardiwala cited the verdict on homosexuality. He said that then the court had given a decision to keep it free from the purview of crime, going against the opinion of the majority. Referring to the Sabarimala case, he said that when we look at the decisions given in this matter, the conflict between the rule of law and the opinion of the majority is clearly visible, but everyone needs to remember that the Constitution of the country That is paramount.