A Patna High Court judge’s comment that a widow has “no need to put on makeup” prompted an embarrassed Supreme Court on Wednesday to say the remark “is not commensurate with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law”.

Earlier on Wednesday, a five-judge bench had castigated a Karnataka High Court judge for referring to a Bengaluru neighbourhood as “Pakistan” — presumably over its demography — and for making “patriarchal and misogynistic” comments about a woman lawyer.

While castigating the “makeup” comment, the apex court acquitted seven lifers — five of them convicted in 1992 and two in 2015 — of kidnapping and murdering a housewife, Neelam, on August 30, 1985, in Munger district of Bihar.

The high court had held the seven guilty after deciding, on the basis of “makeup material” found in a house purportedly visited by the accused, that the married Neelam rather than another woman — a widow — lived in that part of the building.

The observations by the bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on the high court judge’s remark were uploaded late on Wednesday.

Neelam was allegedly abducted from her house by an armed group in connection with a property dispute while her husband was away. She was later murdered.

In 1992, the trial court convicted five accused and acquitted two. Hearing appeals filed by the state and the convicts, Patna High Court on March 26, 2015, upheld the five convictions and reversed the acquittal of the two others, handing life terms to them too.

Hearing their appeal, the apex court ruled that no direct material, except some articles of makeup, had been found in the house to indicate that Neelam actually lived there.

“Admittedly, another woman, namely, Chando Devi… was also residing in the same portion of the house. The High Court did take note of this fact but explained it away by observing that since Chando Devi was a widow, the makeup articles could not have belonged to her as there was no need for her to put on makeup, being a widow,” the apex court said.

“In our opinion, the observation of the High Court is not only legally untenable but also highly objectionable. A sweeping observation of this nature is not commensurate with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law, specifically when the same is not made out from any evidence on record,” Justice Sharma, who authored the judgment, added.

“Furthermore, if Neelam was indeed residing there, her other belongings such as clothes etc ought to have been found in the house and even if not so, the other residents of the same house could have come forward to depose in support of the said fact.”