Sentiments of the Masses

 Indian judiciary is becoming a mockery. While pronouncing the judgement on Kamal Hassan's "Kannada is derived from Tamil" remark, judge mentioned to lawyer that he won't accept any apologies from Mr. Hassan as he has hurt the sentiment of the Masses. This is absurd and unqualified statement. Now the question to be asked to judge is - " Who defines a mass"," What is the definition of sentiments here", " what is the level of hurt on those sentiments". Such anecdotal and loose statements are a cause for worry.

Commentary by ChatGPT

Here’s a balanced and constructive commentary on your statement, maintaining the spirit of your concern while enhancing clarity and professionalism:

---

Commentary:

The recent remarks by a judge while adjudicating Kamal Haasan’s case — particularly the refusal to accept an apology on the grounds that he has "hurt the sentiments of the masses" — raise important questions about the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. The statement, as reported, is concerning not because of the legal outcome per se, but due to the subjective language used in the courtroom.

In a legal system grounded in objectivity and evidence, phrases like “sentiments of the masses” must be carefully qualified. Who exactly constitutes the “masses”? How are “sentiments” defined and measured? What is the threshold for determining that those sentiments have been "hurt"? Without such clarity, judicial commentary risks drifting into anecdotal generalization, which could erode public confidence in the impartiality of the bench.

While courts do have a role in balancing freedom of speech with public order, that balance must be achieved through precise legal reasoning — not rhetorical or emotive pronouncements. Loose or sweeping statements, especially in high-profile matters, can set concerning precedents and contribute to the perception that the judiciary is increasingly politicized or populist.

It is essential for the judiciary to uphold constitutional values, including free expression, while also being mindful of public sensitivities. But that balance must rest on clearly articulated legal standards, not vague references to mass emotions.