Judges And Lawyers Are Co-Equal Partners In Administration Of Justice, None Superior None Inferior: Justice BR Gavai Says Lawyers Are Often Not Treated With Dignity By Judges

Supreme Court Judge BR Gavai, recently, in an event at Kolkata, has remarked that Judges and Lawyers are co-equals and none is superior or inferior. He said that sometimes judges do not treat lawyers with dignity and humility.

Justice Gavai, while addressing the National Judicial Academy Conference on Saturday, has said, "Information is also received about how the Judges behave with the lawyers. 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 also commented upon the presence of government officials in the Courts and said, "Some of the Judges derive pleasure by calling the Senior Executives in the Court. Some of the Judges are known for passing such orders at the drop of a hat. They should understand that Government officials are also required to discharge their duties in the field and unless the conduct is so reckless, such directions should be avoided."

He emphasized that the role of the judges in deciding the contours of constitutional morality 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. As the custodian of the Constitution, a judge has to consciously safeguard constitutional morality over social or political morality, he said.

He also said that many disturbing instances had come to his notice that some of the Judges in the High Courts do not sit on time and it was shocking to him that some of the Judges sit at 11.30 a.m. and get up at 12.30 p.m. though the court timings are 10:30 to 1.30 p.m. "It is more shocking to know that some of the Judges do not sit in the second half.", he opined.

He also focused on the principles of constitutional morality and constitutional values. He referred to the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in decriminalizing homosexuality, upholding the fundamental right to privacy, decriminalizing adultery, and prioritizing gender equality over religious norms.

On the importance of media and live telecasts of judicial proceedings furthering the objective of judicial transparency and accountability, Justice Gavai highlighted, "There are growing concerns about misinterpretation and misquoting of observations made by the judges in ongoing cases. 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."

He explained the concept of Judicial Innovation and how Judges play an important role in bridging a gap between the recognition of a right and its realisation and they do so within their constitutional domain by interpreting the law. He referred to the landmark judgments in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, Independent Thought v. Union of India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

"Citizens have placed constitutional trust in the judiciary, which has the power to review legislative and executive actions (enshrined in Article 13, read with Articles 32, 226, 227) to protect fundamental rights and uphold constitutional values. In its furtherance, the judiciary makes efforts to reconcile the existing laws with the demands of justice. It aims to fill gaps in the current framework and, at times, creatively and progressively interpret the law to meet contemporary needs and address societal issues.", he added.

He also discussed the role of the legislature in the law of democracy and expressed that the ultimate framers of the law in a democracy are the legislators, and the judiciary is vigilant in not overtaking that function. He gave an example of the same-sex marriage case in which the Court noted its institutional limitations in including queer unions in the Special Marriage Act as it would tend to create a law that directly falls within the domain of the legislature.

He also discussed the judgment of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala and highlighted their imperative duty to apply the Directive Principles while interpreting the laws to ensure a march towards social and economic justice along with political justice contemplated in the Constitution.

Before concluding, he referred to Socrates and said, "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 concluded with a concern about rhetorical judgments and remarked, "I am of the view that 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...Building on the words of Lord Coke - law takes “small delight with varnish of words, or garnish of flowers”. We must therefore focus on clarity. We must appreciate that to be a plain, straight and brief becometh the gravity of the profession."