The judge while quoting an Australian judge stated, 'Some standards can be prescribed by law, but the spirit of, and the quality of the service rendered by a profession depends far more on its observance of ethical standards. These are far more rigorous than legal standards.... They are learnt not by precept but by the example and influence of respected peers. Judicial standards are acquired, so to speak, by professional osmosis. They are enforced immediately by conscience.'

The court, while upholding the CIC order, also expressed the fear of misusing the information.

'Judgments of courts are to be based on reason, and discuss fairly what is argued. Judges, unlike other sections of members of the public, cannot meet unjustified personal attacks or tirades carried out against them, or anyone from their fraternity, no clarifications can be issued, no justification is given as propriety and canons of judicial ethics require them to maintain silence.'

'The judge is thus unable to go and explain his position to the people,' Justice Bhat observed.

'An honest, but strict or unpopular judge can be unfairly vilified, without anyone giving his version. Similarly, unfounded allegations of improper personal behaviour cannot be defended by the judge in public, even though they can be levelled freely they may tarnish his reputation or worse, and he would have to smart under them, under the haunting prospect of its being resuscitated every now and then,' the judge said while expressing his 'experience in the case as humble'.