ABSTRACT
As the court belongs to the public and is also the Constitution’s protector, the judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding democracy. To protect the rights and freedoms of the people, the court must always enforce the law and fundamental constitutional values. However, there are many inconsistencies in the legal system as a result of judges rendering ludicrous rulings, which exposes their negligence and lack of accountability. There have been many instances where judges’ prejudice and personal beliefs have influenced their rulings in courts where the law is supreme. Judges must carry out their duties to the best of their abilities to uphold ethics, as mandated by the Constitution.
This paper discusses the circumstances in other nations, such as the USA, the UK, and Australia, demonstrating that this is a global problem rather than a phenomenon exclusive to India. To safeguard the rights of its inhabitants, courts worldwide are faced with the issue of enhancing their legal systems. This paper has also covered a few instances where judges have rendered ludicrous rulings and remarks that are detrimental to the country. Such remarks are not victim-friendly and damage the judiciary’s reputation. Subsequently, the paper addresses the main causes of these systemic absurdities. The main causes are the judges’ personal beliefs, which go against the principles of the constitution, and the underrepresentation or non-representation of particular demographic groups, such as women. The report ends with reforms that are necessary to enhance the administration of justice, including training, accountability, diversity, independence of the court, and moral and ethical education. By tackling these problems, the court can strengthen its position as an unbiased and just adjudicator, guaranteeing the defence of individual rights and upholding public confidence.
KEYWORDS
Judiciary, Morals, Ethics, High Court, Supreme Court, Judges, Public trust, Reforms, Justice
INTRODUCTION
Indian Judiciary has passed the tests of time and proven itself even in the hardest circumstances to be a truly independent and responsible judiciary. Our judges sit for the examinations and gain experience through training, and only after this long period of learning they are given the job to decide for people. They have to decide whether the accused should be hanged or not, whether is he guilty or not, whether they are punishing an innocent, whether they are doing injustice to the victim, whether they are doing right or wrong. There are innumerable questions with them when they decide the fates of people. This is why it is commonly said that judges are the most responsible people because the string to people’s lives is in their hands.
But do they recognize the weight of their job always? Do they feel responsible for their duty? Out of 100 judges if 95 gave correct and lawful verdicts in favour of right then there are also other 5 who have gone off track. One statement by a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court becomes a set precedent for the rest and future judges. What if a wrong precedent is established due to some wrong knowledge or misguided knowledge of a judge? What if instead of upholding the principles of the Constitution high, the protectors of law themselves create discrimination which leads to atrocities and violations of rights? Someone went to the doors of law asking for justice, the law should listen to him, and give him justice but in return, he gets more injustice. This is how responsible the position of a judge is.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper is of a descriptive nature and mainly focuses on secondary sources such as journals, books, websites, and newspapers. This piece is based on mostly doctrinal research, focusing on analysing case studies, existing literature, and other scholarly works in relation to judges’ opinions, judicial ethics, responsibility, and accountability of judges towards their decisions.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- R.C. Lahoti, Canons of Judicial Ethics, 28 (2005) – In “Canons of Judicial Ethics,” former Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti emphasizes the importance of the presence of judicial ethics and morals in the judges and other professionals working in the process of justice delivery. This is so that the humanistic view of life can be added and citizens are treated as humans, not subjects. Mr. Lahoti in the speech outlines the need for adherence to impartiality, fairness, and moral and ethical conduct of a judge. He quoted several speeches, judgments, and legal provisions highlighting the importance of judicial ethics.
- Jus Corpus Law Journal, Professional Ethics of Judges in India, Jus Corpus Law Journal, 2022 – This blog talks of the importance of judicial and moral ethics in present times for the country and also for the individual judge. The author talks about how the biggest asset of the judiciary is the trust the public puts into it to be able to decide for them and this trust can be maintained when judges have an innate sense of ethics in them while deciding for the parties. The blog covers the role of continuous training and strict adherence to ethical standards while upholding judicial conduct and ensuring justice.
- Prateek Chakraborty, India Today, Marriage of Inter-faith Couple Denied Protection by MP High Court, 2024 – This article from India Today covers the controversial decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court denying protection to an inter-faith couple just because of the religion of one party. This article shows how sometimes narrow knowledge and bias of judges can highly negatively affect their decisions causing harm to normal citizens.
- Umang Poddar, Scroll, Why Many in the Legal World Are Dismayed by the Indian Judiciary, 2022 – This article of Scroll explores the increasing disappointments and losing the trust of common people in the India Judiciary. It highlights how a few biased and partial decisions have eroded the public trust in the judiciary and have led to dismay within the legal community. This article also discusses about the need to bring reforms in the legal system and justice delivery to regain the public trust and make just decisions.
JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY
“I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.” This is the oath to be taken by judges as per the Schedule III of the Indian Constitution, binding the judges to always uphold the constitution and give informed decisions. The judiciary’s greatest asset is the public’s trust in it, it cannot simply demand faith, assurance, and acceptability but earn it, by developing an innate sense of morals and ethics. “The court system’s discipline must be maintained at all times. The officer’s trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, and character all play a role in the judgment’s acceptability. Lack of integrity and character of the Judicial Officer affects or shakes the faith of the litigating public.” Given this, every judge must act to the highest ethical standards.
However, regrettably, not all judges have been effective in providing the greatest justice possible in the past or present, and occasionally they make ludicrous remarks that reveal their negligence in their official roles. Reputable judges of prestigious High Courts and Supreme Courts have sometimes made remarks that are against the nation’s laws and constitution, drawing criticism from the general public in the process.
CASE STUDIES
- MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 2024
When a couple asked the court for police protection from the girls parents for their interfaith marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, because none of them was willing to change their religion, they were denied the police protection because the boy was Muslim and the girl was a Hindu. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia said the marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman would be deemed as an “irregular” marriage under Muslim law even if they are married under the Special Marriage Act.
According to the Judge, the marriage between a Muslim boy with a girl who worships fire is not valid even if they are registered under Special Marriage Act. The High Court judge referred to the case of Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen, where the Supreme Court noted that a Muslim man marrying a Hindu is in Muslim Law an irregular Marriage (fashid), not a valid marriage. Whereas Mohammed Salim is not about the Special Marriage Act but Muslim Personal Law. Current case in under secular law. Also, marriage is the cited case of 1948, 7 years before the SMA. In present, SMA can override the personal law for the protection of individuals.
- BOMBAY HIGH COURT 2021
In Satish Ragde V. State of Maharashtra, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, presided over by Coram, Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala, held on January 19, 2021, that pressing a 12-year-old child’s breast without taking off her top does not qualify as “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POSCO) if there is no direct skin-to-skin contact. This statement received huge backlash from the public on the narrow interpretations leading the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and National Commission for Women (NCW) to write to the State of Maharashtra and therefore Supreme Court putting a stay on the judgment.
- MADRAS HIGH COURT 2015
The outrageous judgment by the single judge bench of Madras High Court in V. Mohan v. State had caused uproar in the country when the judge granted bail to the convicted rapist of a 15-year-old and also advised the minor victim girl to marry the rapist. The judge referred the matter to the mediation centre for arranging the marriage talks. The order reads that that the girl with her close relatives and the boy with his close relatives “shall be made to participate in the mediation process”, thus making it an obligation not a choice to attend the mediation process. The girl unequivocally rejects the judgment, she has asked for assistance to challenge it, and she has stated that she does not want any mediation. The order refers to the victim as “nobody’s wife”, “an unwed mother” and says that the child is the “main victim” who will carry a “social stigma” with the conclusion being that this is a “fit case for mediation.” The rapist, in this perverted logic of the order, is converted into the savior of the woman he raped, the knight in shining armor who will wipe out the curse of being “nobody’s wife, an unwed mother”. The judgment and judge were highly criticized nationally and internationally for forgetting their morals, ethics, and duty.
- KHOZIKODE SESSIONS COURT 2022
Khizikode Sessions court Judge granted bail to Civic Chandran, a 74-year-old writer accused of sexual harassment in Sherry J. Thomas v. State of Kerala. The order passed by the sessions judge on August 12 said that sexual harassment complaints would not stand if the woman (complainant) was wearing sexually provocative dress at the time of the offense, the government challenged it in the High Court saying the observations by the court “lack sensitivity and sobriety”. In response, the Kerala High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail and transferred the Judge to a Labour Court.
- RAJASTHAN SESSIONS COURT
The famous gang rape of Bhanwari Devi which led to the coming of Vishakha Guidelines, is one of the most important cases in Indian history. Trail Court held that Bhanwari Devi was not raped, reasoned by the statement “upper caste men cannot rape a lower caste woman” and also said that uncle and nephew together will not rape a person. Later the accused were held guilty and the Supreme Court made Vishakha Guidelines for the protection of women from sexual harassment at the workplace under Vishakha v State of Rajasthan.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
The judiciary is similar all over the world if there is some tolerance for common law. Judges can make laws and interpret other laws in their language changing the stance of law every time. In every judicial system over the world, judges decide the fate of the people standing in front of them. Naturally, there will also be mistakes, some judges will make regressive decisions which can play a negative role in the lives of millions. Many judges will have their bias creep into the decision which can be harmful for the parties. India is not alone in this race where many judges give discriminatory and biased judgements.
Everyone is well aware of Roe v. Wade case of 1973 which allowed abortion in the USA and how in 2022, the Supreme Court of the USA overturned it and made it illegal to have abortions. In doing so, it has effectively ended the constitutional right to an abortion for millions of US women.
In Elan-Cane v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, an English case, Christie Elan-Cane who does not identify himself/herself as either male or female filed a suit regarding the passports having only gender options as male and female. Appellant’s plea was dismissed. The decision was criticized by non-binary and transgender advocates, who argued that the ruling fails to recognize the rights and identities of non-binary individuals and perpetuates discrimination.
In Al-Kateb v. Godwin, the Australian High Court ruled that an asylum seeker could be detained indefinitely if no other country is ready to accept them. This ruling was highly criticized and seen as absurd and inhumane, ignoring basic human rights and international obligations in relation to the treatment of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.
India is not alone in this race of controversial and absurd judgments which somewhere curtail the natural and human rights of a person. It is natural to have some judges who may have their biases and personal opinions creep into their statements and verdicts.
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO JUDICIAL ABSURDITIES
“It is unfortunate that I have lost faith in an institution to which I owe my existence”, on July 1, Bilal Nazki, former chief justice of the Orissa High Court and presently a senior advocate, posted this dispiriting message on Twitter. Many lawyers, former judges, legal practitioners, and academicians have seen in recent times criticizing verdicts and expressing their disappointment with the justice delivery where not enough is being done to protect citizen’s rights and uphold the law. Wrote legal commentator Gautam Bhatia in 2020, “There is little doubt in my mind that…the [Supreme Court’s] collapse into the ‘executive court’ [a court favoring the executive’s actions] has intensified”, due to the increasing actions of Union government in the judiciary. There have been similar attempts to curtail the independence of the Judiciary earlier also under Indira Gandhi but the judiciary was able to survive that period and maintain its independence. Union government is always looking for chances to get judgments in their favour.
“He hugged me around the waist, and touched me all over my body with his arms and by pressing his body against mine, and did not let go”, this is a statement by a junior court assistant towards former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi. Justice K Bhakthavatsala of a Karnataka Court is reported to have said recently in court that it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife as long as he took good care of her. The Karnataka High Court noted that it was “unbecoming of an Indian woman” to go to sleep after she’s “ravished”, the bench granted bail to the accused of rape, criminal intimidation, and cheating.
It is said that in examinations of the Judiciary and UPSC, you don’t write what you think but what you should think. If someone writes that they believe in equality between men and women does not mean they actually believe in that. This means that it is very possible that in our courts there are judges who are misogynistic, racist, and who believe in the superiority of one over another. If a judge believes in the absolute right of the husband on the wife and considers her as the property of the husband then how can we expect him to give a judgment condemning Marital rape. Education does not bring moral and ethical values. Just like normal citizens judges also have their personal opinions and biases which sometimes affect normal people’s lives.
CONSEQUENCES
The judiciary is one of the most trusted state institutions. People believe that after numerous oppressions everywhere they will be safe and get justice through the Judiciary. Trust is the foremost principle of any institution which is established for the welfare of citizens but when this trust is broken due to some constraints, it harms the whole institution. People start questioning the efficiency, impartiality, and fairness of the justice system due to some of the judges. How will a rape victim get the courage to go to court when she knows that earlier another rape victim was asked to marry the convict? Because of such statements the crime is not treated as grievously as it is and the wrongdoer goes with or no punishment. Such acts lead to human rights violations and instigate the criminals to commit more such inhumane acts. If a judge of a higher court will openly say that there is no problem in marital rape and that is the right of every husband over his wife, this will encourage more husbands to commit atrocities on their wives. Such verdicts also reinforce the social stigmas and stereotypes, thus, setting wrong precedents. These kinds of absurdities in justice delivery have seen vast international criticism leading to degrading the image of the country and leading to the perception that India does not follow international human rights regulations.
SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM
It is important to bring significant change in the system not letting irresponsible and absurd verdicts become precedents and punish the innocents. Sensitization and training should be conducted for judges at regular intervals rather than just once in the starting, to keep them updated about social justice, gender equality, and other human rights issues. There should be a mechanism for holding judges accountable for their statements and some actions other than transfer. There should be performance reviews, public scrutiny, and peer evaluations. There should be clearer legislative guidelines and amendments to existing law so that there is no misinterpretation, and there should be no space for ambiguity. For example, if there are proper guidelines then a judge will not say that making a minor girl naked in front of you and asking her to take off her clothes will not come under sexual assault. The judiciary should be completely independent of the Legislature or Executive for its decisions although there should be some level of checks and balances but not at the expense of the freedom of the judiciary. Promoting diversity and inclusion can lead to better decisions and making judges rise above their parochial identities. Also, there should be more representation of different groups like women, minorities, and other unrepresented groups. In law schools, there is no or least education on ethics, morals, and humanity which makes judges and lawyers see the parties in front of them as subjects, not as humans. Education needs to involve basic values in its curriculum.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while the Indian Judiciary is known for its independence and ahead-of-time decisions, still some run behind the time and make regressive decisions not progressive, leading to negative outcomes. The judiciary needs to uphold the law at any cost and protect the interests of the citizens of the country. Addressing these issues needs a multifaceted approach involving public participation, parties’ opinions, legislative clarity, checks and balances, accountability, responsibility, morals and value systems, and training. By the implementation of these reforms, the Judiciary can maintain and enhance its image as impartial and fair whose duty is just to impart justice to all set favourable precedents, and ensure that the rights and interests of all individuals are protected.
AUTHOR:
Payal Bhardwaj
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab