Court hearings often feature judges making remarks while listening to arguments—commonly called “observations”. Though not part of a formal order, such comments can still become headlines, especially when they appear critical of governments or institutions.
The article recalls instances where observations drew attention, including comments during a Sabarimala Constitution Bench hearing on devotees’ rights and the limits of courts in testing faith. It also cites a case linked to the Sethusamudram issue, where Supreme Court judges expressed displeasure over a bandh and made critical remarks about how the Madras High Court handled the matter—remarks that later prompted a clarification in a newspaper that they were not part of the order.
Against this backdrop, the report narrates the story of a judge who, while serving in another state, delivered several high-profile rulings and attracted both praise and allegations. The judge was widely expected to be elevated to the Supreme Court but ultimately retired without getting the appointment.
The former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan is quoted as saying he too wanted the judge to be brought to the Supreme Court, but it did not happen because of opposition within the five-member collegium. The account suggests that if even one member—especially a future Chief Justice—does not agree, the appointment may not go through.
