 In 2021, from lower courts to the top court, judges made all kinds of not-so-judicious statements. They range from being parochial to primitive, outrageous and hilarious too. Here바카라re some prominent instances wherein words uttered by the judges failed to meet judicial standards and kicked up controversy over the year:
 1. Respect thy Prime Minister
 December 21: Rejecting a plea 바카라 which sought to do away with Prime Minister Narendra Modi바카라s photograph from Covid-19 vaccination certificates, Kerala High Court observed that citizens are duty-bound to respect the prime minister.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan imposed a cost of one lakh rupees to be paid by the petitioner to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within six weeks.
In his order, Justice Kunhikrishnan held that 바카라The Prime Minister of India is not a person who entered the Parliament house by breaking the roof of the parliament building. He came to power because of the mandate of the people.바카라
 2. India바카라s spiritual image
 December 5: In his keynote address at a seminar organised by an outfit linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Chief Justice, Pankaj Mithal, said that the inclusion of the terms 바카라secular바카라 and 바카라socialist바카라 in the Preamble of the Constitution had 바카라narrowed바카라 India바카라s 바카라spiritual image바카라.
During his lecture on 바카라Dharma and the Constitution of India: The Interplay,바카라 Justice Mithal said, 바카라India is capable of taking care of all its citizens and the socialist nature was inherent in it. Pandavas to Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals and Britishers ruled it, but India was never defined on the basis of religion as a Muslim, Christian or Hindu nation because it was accepted as a spiritual country.바카라
 3. Justice for the Judge
December 9: Speaking on the sidelines of the launch of his memoir 바카라Justice for the Judge바카라, former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, said that he should have avoided sitting in the Supreme Court bench that initiated the suo motu proceedings in the wake of sexual harassment allegations levelled against him.
바카라I go to the Rajya Sabha whenever I feel like it,바카라 Justice Gogoi바카라s comments in a TV interview regarding his book had triggered a privilege notice. He was responding to a question on his poor attendance since his nomination to the upper house of the Parliament.
4. National honour for lords Rama, Krishna
 October 8: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court stated that Lord Rama, Lord Krishna besides epic books like Ramayana, Gita and their authors, Maharishi Valmiki and Maharishi Ved Vyas, are part of the heritage of the country which ought to be given national honour by bringing a law in the Indian Parliament.
While deciding the bail plea of a person 바카라 who had allegedly made obscene remarks against Lord Rama and Lord Krishna on his Facebook account 바카라 Justice Yadav noted that 바카라India is a liberal country where there is a provision of less punishment for such acts.바카라
Justice Yadav, who had previously called for declaring cow a national animal in September 2021, referred to the Supreme Court바카라s decision on Ramjanmabhoomi, saying, 바카라It signifies that Ram resides in the heart of every citizen of this country. He is the soul, identity and culture of this country. Without Rama, India is incomplete.바카라
 5. 바카라Cow exhales oxygen바카라
September 1: In a matter related to a bail application, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court stated that cow should be declared as the national animal of India. Going a step further, in his written order, he listed several virtues of the cow to substantiate his argument. 바카라Jab gaaye ka kalyaan hoga, tabhi desh ka kalyaan hoga (Only cow바카라s prosperity will ensure country바카라s prosperity)바카라 the court바카라s order said.
바카라Scientists believe that cow is the only animal which inhales and exhales oxygen. Panchgavya, which is made of cow milk, curd, ghee, urine and cow dung, helps in the treatment of several incurable diseases", Justice Yadav observed in the order, adding that India has traditionally been using cow ghee in yajnas for 바카라this gives special energy to sunrays, which ultimately cause rains.바카라
 6. A murder case against the EC
 April 26: Disgusted over spike in the Corona cases, Madras High Court Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee lambasted the Election Commission of India for allowing political rallies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Addressing the Election Commission's counsel, Justice Banerjee observed, 바카라Your officers should be booked on murder charges probably.바카라
Stressing on the paramount importance of public health, Justice Banerjee asked the counsel, 바카라Were you on another planet when the election rallies were held?바카라
Demanding that the high court remarks be expunged and the media barred from reporting oral statements of the judges, EC approached the Supreme Court. But the top court declined the plea, saying that oral observations need to be reported to ensure transparent court proceedings. The court, however, advised that judges avoid making 바카라off the cuff바카라 remarks.
 7. 바카라Will you marry her?바카라
 March 21: SA Bobde, the then Chief Justice of India, got himself in the hot waters when he asked a 23-year old man accused of raping a girl, when she was 16, if he would marry her. 바카라You should have thought before seducing and raping the young girl. You know you are a government servant바카라, CJI Bobde asked the petitioner바카라s lawyer while hearing a special leave petition. 바카라We are not forcing you to marry. Let us know if you will. Otherwise, you will say we are forcing you to marry.바카라
The lawyer, however, informed the court that the petitioner had married someone else, adding that he initially wanted to marry the rape survivor but she had refused. Following hue and cry on his remarks, on the next date of hearing, CJI Bobde, however, clarified that his observations were 바카라misreported바카라. He said, 바카라We never gave a suggestion that you should marry. We had asked, are you going to marry.바카라
 8. Tandav and religious sentiments
 February 25: Denying anticipatory bail to the actors and makers of a web series on Amazon Prime, 바카라Tandav바카라, Justice Siddharth of the Allahabad High Court observed that the word 바카라Tandav바카라 as the title of the movie could be offensive to the majority of the people in the country as 바카라it is associated with a particular act assigned to Lord Shiva who is considered to be creator, conservator and destroyer of mankind altogether바카라.
Referring to Hindi movies such as Ram Teri Ganga Maili, Satyam Shivam Sundram, PK, Oh My God, in his 20-page-order, Justice Siddharth held that a number of movies have been produced which have used the name of Hindu gods and goddesses and shown them in 바카라disrespectful manner바카라.
Eventually, the apex court also refused relief to the actors and makers of the 바카라Tandav바카라. Justice MR Shah, who headed the bench, observed, 바카라You cannot play a role hurting religious sentiments of others.바카라
 9. Must not be spared
January 25: Justice Rohit Arya at the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court made remarks that indicated predetermination of the alleged offence at the investigation stage. Justice Arya was hearing the bail plea of comedians, Munawwar Faruqi and Nalin Yadav, in a case of alleged insult to religious sentiments.
바카라What is wrong with your mindset? How can you do this for the purpose of your business?바카라 he observed, 바카라Such people must not be spared.바카라
In his order he rejected the bail, observing that the evidence suggested that the accused 바카라under the garb of stand up comedy바카라 made 바카라scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India.바카라
Later, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai stayed high court order and granted bail in less than 5-minutes on the first day of the hearing.
 10. Skin contact and POCSO
 January 19: Acquitting a 39-year-old accused, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that 바카라groping a minor바카라s breast without skin to skin contact can't be termed as sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.바카라
A single bench of Justice Pushpa Ganediwala had made the observations while modifying the order of a session court that held the accused guilty of sexual assault for groping a 12-year-old-girl and disrobing her. Notably, as per the POCSO Act, 바카라Whoever, with sexual intent, touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.바카라
In November this year, however, the Supreme Court cancelled the order, describing it as a 바카라narrow interpretation of the law바카라.
 (With inputs from news reports and agencies)
