Shocking To Know That Some High Court Judges Are Not Conducting Court On Time, Sitting In Second Half: Justice BR Gavai

Supreme Court judge Justice BR Gavai on Saturday, spoke at the National Judicial Academy Conference at Kolkata. 

Earlier Live Law had reported on Chief Justice of India Justice (Dr) DY Chadrachud's speech at the aforesaid conference, also attended by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

The CJI had expressed that judges should not be considered deities, but realise their role to serve the people. 

While delivering his address, Justice Gavai touched on the principles to be followed by judges in today's times. He quoted Greek philosopher Aristotle in his message to those on the bench.

Socrates has said, “Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially”. It has also been said that a judge should be studious, courteous, conscientious, patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless of public clamour, regardless of public praise, indifferent to private, political or partisan influences.Time has come to introspect and ask us as to what extent we follow these principles, he said.

He also expressed great dismay at the timings of some High Court judges who do not sit on time.

It is shocking to know that some of the Judges, though the court timings are 10.30 a.m., sit at 11.30 a.m. and get up at 12.30 p.m. though the court timings are up to 1.30 p.m. It is more shocking to know that some of the Judges do not sit in the second half, the Supreme Court judge said.

Justice Gavai also expressed reservation at the way some judges "treat lawyers without dignity."

The lawyers are not treated with the dignity they deserve and are often humiliated by Judges. We should not forget that the Judges and Lawyers are co-equal partners in the administration of justice; none superior, none inferior. Misbehaving with lawyers does not enhance the dignity of the institution, but rather undermines it, he added.

Justice Gavai emphasized the constitutional role of the judiciary, stating that it is to interpret the law, uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution, and protect the fundamental rights of individuals. He noted, "As we fathom the implications of its role, we understand that judges have to interpret the law that upholds the rule of law and is also relevant amidst the constant society's progress."

Justice Gavai further elaborated on justice delivery, stating, “Justice delivery has never been a routine mathematical function of analyzing facts and applying the relevant law as it is. Judges of the constitutional courts have to adopt a dynamic role and strike down legislation or policy when it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. A judge is a final arbiter in determining what a law is. In doing so, they shape the country's legal landscape by balancing the interests of the individual and the society.” 

Focusing on the role of the judges in deciding the contours of constitutional morality, Justice Gavai stated that it often stems from their efforts to harmonize the rights of an individual, society and the State amidst the shifting and subjecting notions of right and wrong.

He also highlighted the role of judges in deciding the contours of constitutional morality, explaining that it often stems from their efforts to harmonize the rights of an individual, society, and the State amidst the shifting and subjecting notions of right and wrong. Justice Gavai stated, "As the custodian of the Constitution, a judge has to consciously safeguard constitutional morality over social or political morality."

Justice Gavai pointed out that contestation with societal norms can emerge not only in hearing a case but also in the constant commentary seen on social media. He remarked, “In the age of instant communication and widespread dissemination of information, every word spoken in a courtroom can be rapidly shared, analyzed, and often distorted on social media platforms. Judges' remarks, intended as tentative thoughts or questions to probe the arguments of counsel, can be taken out of context and used to influence public opinion or pressure the judiciary … It is crucial for judges to remain unaffected by such external pressures to ensure their objectivity and impartiality in decision-making. The integrity of the judicial process depends on the ability of judges to deliberate and decide cases based solely on the law and the facts presented, without being swayed by public sentiment or media commentary.”

Justice Gavai spoke on "Cooperative federalism," describing it as a constitutional ideal that embodies cooperative and collaborative interaction between the Centre, the States, and local governments to frame and execute laws and policies. He highlighted that the distribution of powers, state representation in law-making and policy-making within the constitutional design, and the establishment of bodies such as Inter-State Councils exemplify the commitment to developing a unified framework of cooperative federalism. He noted that the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax was a significant step towards advancing cooperative federalism and strengthening the country's economic integration.

Justice Gavai emphasized that while cooperative federalism is crucial for maintaining India's unity and integrity, competition, contestation, or friction between the different federal units, when exercised in a democratic and constitutional manner, is also necessary for the country's overall development. He pointed out that the Indian Constitution provides a detailed framework for the distribution of powers between the Union and the States through the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List, which delineate the subjects on which each level of government can legislate. Despite this clear demarcation, conflicts inevitably arise due to overlapping jurisdictions, differing political interests, and the evolving nature of governance challenges. He stressed that courts play a crucial role in resolving these conflicts.

Justice Gavai stated that courts must carefully evaluate the scope of constitutional powers allocated to both the Union and the States when adjudicating disputes. Their role is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, ensuring that the balance of power between the different levels of government is maintained and that any encroachment on the powers of one by the other is appropriately addressed.

He further remarked that the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts, clarifying constitutional powers, and maintaining the balance between the Union and the States is vital for ensuring that India's federal system functions smoothly and effectively, fostering both unity and progress, as noted by constitutional historian Granville Austin.

Justice Gavai also addressed issues related to judicial conduct, stating that some judges derive pleasure from summoning senior executives to court and are known for passing such orders frequently. He urged that government officials, who have duties to discharge in the field, should not be called to court unless their conduct is reckless.

He stressed that judicial discipline and fraternity are crucial aspects of the institution. However, he observed that some judges pass orders contrary to earlier orders by other judges. He expressed concern over judges canvassing for elevation to the Supreme Court, arguing that such behavior undermines the principle of discipline that should be maintained. Justice Gavai explained that the Collegium works on a database containing information on all judges under consideration for elevation and takes inputs from various sources, including the opinions of consultee judges in the Supreme Court who have examined the functioning of these judges. He believes that canvassing by judges is detrimental to judicial discipline.

He also talked about rhetorical judgments, whereby he opined, “the judgment should be written for the end consumers of justice i.e., the litigant. Employing a language which is difficult to understand not only by the litigants but also Judges does not take its purpose any further.”

“We also come across various matters wherein despite various judgments of the Supreme Court that the reserved judgments should not be kept pending for long, the judgments are not delivered for months together. Such a practice, apart from making the work difficult for the Judges, also leads to eroding the confidence of the public in the judiciary,” he added.

“Even today, a common man believes that the last hope available to him is the judiciary, and that it is the judiciary where he will get justice. It is our duty to enhance the faith that this common citizen has in our Institution and to ensure that we perform in a manner which not only enhances its faith but also the dignity of this great institution to which we owe everything,” Justice Gavai concluded.