By Meher Sunil Dabrai
Introduction
In a democratic nation like ours, the judiciary is said to be the guardian of constitutional rights and obligations. We also know that the judiciary is an independent organ of a democratic government. This sometimes makes the citizens question their faith in the judicial system of the country.
One must not forget that despite being an independent organ, the judiciary cannot be above public accountability. Judicial independence and judicial accountability are concepts that go hand in hand with each other.
Judicial accountability increases the legitimacy of the judiciary and helps the judiciary to build trust amongst the people and therefore it discharges its duties more effectively and efficiently.
It has always been observed that justice cannot gain public respect by making it immune to criticism by the masses. Public confidence is reposed on the judicial institution on the basis of its performance and the transparency portrayed by it in its actions the same is also true for the judiciary in India.
The fact that the judiciary is open to criticism does not mean that it can be falsely criticized and accused in a manner where the dignity of the system and the judicial officers is put in jeopardy.
To avoid the judiciary from being falsely humiliated in the public eye, criminal laws on defamation safeguard the reputation and dignity of honest judicial officers in the country just like they protect the dignity and reputation of any honest man in the country.
History and Background
In the past, the law makers in the country had realized that a code of conduct for the judges in the country had to be set in place. This measure had to be taken to assure that the judges do not consider themselves to be infallible.
To ensure proper conduct of the members of the higher judicial authorities, a 16 point Code of Conduct called “The Reinstatement of Values of Judicial Life” was set upon 7th May 1997 by the Judges of the Supreme Court along with the members of different High Courts during that time.
It was drafted by a Committee of five judges including Justice S.P. Barucha, Justice K.S. Paripoornan, Justice M. Srinivasan and Justice D.P. Mohapatra headed by Dr. A.S. Anand. The 16 points of the code are as follows:
- Justice must not only be done but it must be visible that it has been done. The manner in which the members of the higher judiciary behave and conduct themselves must reaffirm the faith of the people in the impartiality of the judicial system. Accordingly, any act of a judge of the Supreme Court or a Higher Court whether it may be in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of perception must be avoided at all cost.
- A Judge should not contest in the elections of any other office or club, society or any other such association; further he shall not hold any such elective office except in a society or association that is connected with the law.
- Close association with individuals who are members of the Bar, particularly those who practice in the same court, shall be eschewed.
- A judge should not permit any member of his immediate family such as spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law or any other similar close relative, if a member of the Bar, to appear before him or even be associated in any manner with any cause that is to be dealt with by him.
- No member of the Judge’s family, who is a member of the Bar, shall be permitted to use the residence in which the judge actually resides or facilitates other professional work.
- A Judge should practice a degree of aloofness that is consistent with the dignity of his office.
- A Judge shall not hear and decide a matter in which a member of his family, any close relation or a friend is concerned.
- A Judge shall not enter into any sort of public debate or express his views in public or political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination.
- A Judge is expected to let his judgements speak for themselves; he shall not give any interviews to the media.
- A Judge shall not accept any gifts or hospitality from anybody except his close relatives, family or his friends.
- A Judge shall not hear and decide a matter in which a company in which he holds shares is concerned unless he has disclosed his interest and no objection to his hearing and deciding the matter is raised.
- A Judge shall not speculate in shares, stock or the like.
- A Judge should not engage directly or indirectly in trade or business either by himself or in association with any other person. (Publication of legal treatise or any activity in the nature of the hobby will not be considered as trade or business in such a case)
- A Judge should not ask for, accept contributions or otherwise actively associate himself with the raising of funds for any purpose.
- A Judge should not seek any financial benefit in the form of a perquisite or privilege attached to his office unless it is clearly available. Any doubt in this behalf must be government resolved and clarified through the Chief Justice.
- Every Judge must be conscious at all times that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office that he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.
These are the “Restatement of the Values of Judicial life” that have been laid down but these are not exhaustive but are only illustrative of what is expected of a Judge who is at such an authoritative position in the judiciary.
The Bar Council of India Rules
Under the Bar Council of India Rules, an advocate shall, at all times, conduct himself in a manner that befits his status as an officer of the court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and a moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate.
These rules are not only applicable for advocated but are equally applicable to the judges as officers of the law as well.
In High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal[1] the Judges were described as “Hermits”, further reminding that “they have to live and behave like hermits, who have no desires or aspiration, having shed it through penance. Their mission is to supply light and not heat.”
What the Court meant in its observation was that while the judiciary is also manned by human beings, they have to take into accountability the regard of their privileged position.
Further in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad[2] the Supreme Court set the standard by observing that “Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and the other outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy.”
In High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S Patil[3] the Judges represent the State and its authority irrespective of at whatever level they may be, unlike the members of the bureaucracy or members of any other service.
Judicial service is not merely an employment and the Judges are not merely employees of the system as they exercise sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and the responsibility to uphold the judicial system in India and administer justice to all its citizens.
The Court wisely stated that if a judicial officer “tips the scales of justice rippling its effect would be disastrous and deleterious.”
In Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana[4] the Supreme Court held that any sort of remarks made against the Judge are scandalous and can pervert the process of justice by interfering with its proper administration, then it amounts to contempt.
Similar jurisprudence was reiterated in Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India[5] where the court held that scandalizing any court or the judge can undermines the confidence of the people in the administration of justice and disrepute’s the Court and the judicial system.
This amounts to criminal contempt. Any kind of scandalous and false attacks on a Judge that raise doubt to his authority and delays the course of justice tantamount to contempt of the court.
Conclusion
The Judiciary is an essential pillar of a democracy and upholds the principles of justice and moral conduct in the Indian society and the Judges are an integral part of this pillar.
Therefore a Code of Conduct for the Judges is also required to ensure that there are no obstacles in the administration of justice to the people of the nation which, in turn safeguards their faith in the judicial system.
Recently, the courts have been conducting online proceedings due to the Covid-19 situation in the country but in spite of this, a code of conduct has to be upheld even during these proceedings by the Advocates and the Judges as well.
They have to follow the dress code as well as the code of conduct that would have otherwise been followed in the courtroom under normal circumstances.
References
- hpsja.nic.in
- indiankanoon.org
- theleaflet.in
- legalservicesindia.com
- Restatement of values of judicial life
- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal (1998) 2 SCC 72 ↑
- Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad (1987)3 SCC 1 ↑
- High Court of Judicature v. Shashikant S Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416 ↑
- Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR1995 SC 1974 SCC 99 ↑
- Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR 1996 SCC(7) 216 ↑