"Judicial restraint in speech is as important as judicial activism in judgments." Discuss with reference to recent controversies over judges commenting on sub judice matters.

The Supreme Court's Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) asks judges not to express public views on matters "pending or likely to arise" before them [2]. Activism on the bench protects rights. Restraint off the bench protects the impartiality that makes those judgments legitimate.

The recent controversy

• At NALSAR, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that mass disenfranchisement would breach Articles 14 and 326, and that Section 22, RPA 1950 requires notice and a hearing before a name is deleted [1].
• Former CJI B.R. Gavai and two former Delhi HC judges objected that the issue was sub judice. The next day, Justice Vikram Nath lectured on impartiality [1].

Why restraint in speech matters

• Apparent impartiality: when a judge pre-judges a pending issue, it creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and invites recusal pleas. Justice must be seen to be done.
• Global standard: the Bangalore Principles place impartiality and propriety among six core judicial values [3].
• Weak external checks: Article 121 bars Parliament from discussing a judge's conduct except on a removal motion [4]. The 1997 code is non-statutory [2]. Self-restraint is often the only safeguard.
• Legal precision: Justice Sodhi stressed that voting rights are governed by a statutory framework. Speeches can get ahead of settled law [1].
• Institutional comity: comment made before adjudication can look like a verdict on the ECI, a constitutional body.

Why activism and judicial voice still matter

• In substance, Bhuyan J.'s point about procedural safeguards matches existing rulings. The dispute is over timing and forum, not merit [1].
• "Noisy judges": Justice Gogoi (2018) argued that democracy needs judges who speak up against executive excess [1].
• Adult suffrage under Article 326 [4] is the base of democracy. When large-scale roll deletions threaten migrants and the poor, firm judicial protection through judgments is essential.

Way forward

• Judges should speak through judgments and keep extra-judicial speech to principles, not live cases.
• Update the Restatement into a codified, enforceable code in line with the Bangalore Principles [3].
• Judges should recuse voluntarily where their past remarks anticipate a case.

Judicial activism and restraint in speech are two sides of one duty: protecting rights without losing neutrality. A judiciary that is bold in its judgments and measured in its speeches serves the constitutional promise of fair adjudication and keeps the public trust on which its authority rests.