There has always been insistence upon the superior integrity of judicial administration. There is also need for the sublimity of justice. The administration of justice is considered not only as a function of the state but as something of mystery. This is apparent from many familiar practices and sentiments. At least High Courts of justice are everywhere required to be architecturally magnificent. A trial, particularly a criminal trial, is as much as a rite as a religious ceremony. The proceedings are arranged to impress both the participants and the spectators with solemnity of the occasion, with the majesty of the administration of justice. Not only the vulgar but the enlightened still respond to the ritual with some feeling of awe.
The reasons for these peculiar attitudes towards judicial administration hark back to an early period in the history of the state, which established the primary importance of rendering justice between man and man. There is a persisting memory of the anarchy of the period of self-help. The early sacral affiliations of the administration of justice are also not forgotten. When the king asserted his power over warring and intractable nobles, justice was established as the very foundations of the kingdoms. The common man now had some measure of relief against the aggressions of the mighty. In his gratitude he invested justice with special attributes of sanctity. For many centuries the state remained almost solely the policing state, and the administration of justice was the only public function it undertook in the interest of the common man. Legal justice was synonymous with social justice, and it was natural enough that it should be appreciated very highly. Today the state undertakes many administrative services, and the contact of the average citizen with the state is far more frequent through its administration than its judicial agencies. The average man today may not pass through life without coming into contact with the judicial machinery of the state. But it is still considered far less calamitous to have to pay a bribe for an occupational license than to be denied justice in the courts or to get it by paying for it.
Nothing more can undermine the certainty of justice than lack of impartiality. Thus the integrity of the administration of justice has been elevated as an ideal. Moreover the insistence has been upon a superior degree of integrity as compared with other branches of administration. Judicial administration has been surrounded with special safeguards. The modern state has striven to achieve a legal justice that should be far superior to its economic justice. In large measure it has succeeded. A judicial scandal is considered especially deplorable. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in the courts is a cause for great anxiety and alarm. A legislator or an administrator may be found guilty of corruption without apparently endangering the foundations of the state but a judge must keep himself absolutely above suspicion. To speak of " the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judges and administration of justice has become almost a fetish." The courts/judges have now to realise that its sacrosanct nature, its high pedestal, its power of contempt will not save it if they are not fair, impartial and honest. The modern tendency is that the right to criticize judges be one of the safeguards to ensure very high standards of performance. Our Supreme Court observed in one of the cases:
"Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgements, the force, fairness and objectivity of their approach and by the restraint, dignity and decorum with which they observe their judicial conduct."
India Today summed up the situation thus:
Judges today are community under siege. They are being divested of the single virtue that has been their armour and sword-credibility. It is not the tragedy of just a few hundred individuals that their ability and intentions are being brought into question. When these individuals happen to be the guardians of our liberty and property, the interpreters and watchdogs of our constitution, it becomes a national catastrophe. It affects and stultifies each one of us.
The reasons for these peculiar attitudes towards judicial administration hark back to an early period in the history of the state, which established the primary importance of rendering justice between man and man. There is a persisting memory of the anarchy of the period of self-help. The early sacral affiliations of the administration of justice are also not forgotten. When the king asserted his power over warring and intractable nobles, justice was established as the very foundations of the kingdoms. The common man now had some measure of relief against the aggressions of the mighty. In his gratitude he invested justice with special attributes of sanctity. For many centuries the state remained almost solely the policing state, and the administration of justice was the only public function it undertook in the interest of the common man. Legal justice was synonymous with social justice, and it was natural enough that it should be appreciated very highly. Today the state undertakes many administrative services, and the contact of the average citizen with the state is far more frequent through its administration than its judicial agencies. The average man today may not pass through life without coming into contact with the judicial machinery of the state. But it is still considered far less calamitous to have to pay a bribe for an occupational license than to be denied justice in the courts or to get it by paying for it.
Nothing more can undermine the certainty of justice than lack of impartiality. Thus the integrity of the administration of justice has been elevated as an ideal. Moreover the insistence has been upon a superior degree of integrity as compared with other branches of administration. Judicial administration has been surrounded with special safeguards. The modern state has striven to achieve a legal justice that should be far superior to its economic justice. In large measure it has succeeded. A judicial scandal is considered especially deplorable. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in the courts is a cause for great anxiety and alarm. A legislator or an administrator may be found guilty of corruption without apparently endangering the foundations of the state but a judge must keep himself absolutely above suspicion. To speak of " the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judges and administration of justice has become almost a fetish." The courts/judges have now to realise that its sacrosanct nature, its high pedestal, its power of contempt will not save it if they are not fair, impartial and honest. The modern tendency is that the right to criticize judges be one of the safeguards to ensure very high standards of performance. Our Supreme Court observed in one of the cases:
"Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgements, the force, fairness and objectivity of their approach and by the restraint, dignity and decorum with which they observe their judicial conduct."
India Today summed up the situation thus:
Judges today are community under siege. They are being divested of the single virtue that has been their armour and sword-credibility. It is not the tragedy of just a few hundred individuals that their ability and intentions are being brought into question. When these individuals happen to be the guardians of our liberty and property, the interpreters and watchdogs of our constitution, it becomes a national catastrophe. It affects and stultifies each one of us.
0 comments: