Temples of justice are the ultimate hope for those in quest for Justice. In recent years we have some outstanding young judges appointed but with no transparency and accountability in the selection process over the years some judges lacking legal acumen have also creeped into the system. We have some judges in the subordinate courts who even after a decade of donning that position continue to display their sheer ignorance of law and legal procedures coupled with utter gross arrogance. Sometimes only after years such judges are sacked or compulsorily retired. But what about the damage they have done to the institution by dispensing injustice through their poor judgments during those years they held office.
There is no clear cut formula for writing a judgment. In the writing of a judgment the supreme virtue for every judge however should be clarity and precision. Nobody being above the law, judges should while dispensing justice be blind to the social status or financial standing of the parties to the litigation. Caste, creed and other considerations should not be taken into account except the Rule of law. Judgments cannot be tailored to benefit the rich, powerful or the influential. There should be consistency in the manner in which judges interpret the law. Under no circumstances can Courts be casinos where the litigants gamble their luck to secure favorable orders. Some judges may regard it as derogatory, to have to listen to a subject on writing judgments which they consider themselves to have mastered. However as the subject goes to the very core of the judicial function it is an issue worth debating. A judge while battling with varying facts of the various statutes involved and the differing perceptions acquires skills of his own. Eventually, it is experience that enables the judge how to go about the job. There are gifted judges who stand above others in writing judgments. Judges whose judgments are too brief shift the entire burden of giving reasons on the appellate Court. Some of these judges glorify their disposal statistics. The percentage of appeals filed against their judgments and how often they are reversed is apparent. Quality can never be sacrificed for quantity. The foremost duty of every judge is to deliver a well reasoned judgment. There are also some other judges who err on the other side by their lengthy and confused judgments. Some training needs to be given to newly recruited judges so that they can write lucid and rational judgments with clear cut findings. At the start of one’s judicial career some judges rightly adopt the traditional way of writing judgments. Years of experience and a little innovation can improve the quality of their writing. Some judges reproduce the entire pleadings page after page, in their judgments, extracting the contents of each document and then reproducing the entire evidence. There is no way of knowing how the conclusions are reached. It is expected that the Judge gathers the relevant pleading, documentary evidence and oral evidence under each issue and draws his conclusions. That is what makes a good judgment. The quality of a judgment depends upon the quality of arguments addressed. But an incomplete or inartistic argument of a lawyer is no excuse for producing an unsatisfactory judgment. Judges have a moral and legal duty to make up for the shortcomings of the lawyers who argue before them. A certain minimum amount of research by the judge is needed. In the past lack of a good law library at home or even in the Court was a handicap for the judges in the subordinate courts. Today most courts have a law library and even personal libraries for the judges. No judge should think that the sheer length of his judgment or its physical weight will be an index of quality. The quality depends on the presentation of facts, discussion of the issues of both fact and law and the quality of the reasoning. Judgment-writing is indeed an art. There are judges who are highly technical in their approach and have no mind for justice. At the other end of the spectrum are those whose sense of justice totally overrides the bounds of law. Both these paths are unacceptable. The Judge must always try to render justice but that does not permit him to transgress the limitations of the law. Drawing the line is not normally difficult except in very rare cases. It is said that judges have their own personal pre determined view on various issues. It is presumed that some judges are pro-landlord or pro-tenant, pro-individual rights as against community interests, or pro-women/children as against men, pro-labour or pro-management. No doubt judges are human and their family background, education or environment may influence their decision-making process. This cannot be helped. But over a period, the judge must detach himself from these fixations and keep the oath of his office in mind and decide every case strictly in accordance with law and the set principles of justice. Few judges think that use of flowery language is necessary. In their anxiety to do so, they use words which are either totally inappropriate or disproportionate to the context or the circumstances. Every judgment must be in a simple language. The law laid down or expressed must be clear and definite. We all know that judgments in Municipal and Panchayat appeals are dictated not by the officers hearing the case but prepared in the offices of the concerned Ministers. It is however alarming when we hear that judgments pronounced by some judges in Courts are also drafted and prepared by their spouse lawyers, their former senior advocates or by some one else. When one sees the grammatical, spelling and other errors in the judgments delivered one wonders whether that judge had even cared to read the judgment before pronouncing it. If that judgment was infact not written by the judge delivering it, the same augurs very shoddily for an institution that should have otherwise been above board. Lord Justice Templeman divided Judges into three categories on the basis of their judgments. The three categories being philosophers, the scientists and the advocates. He had said that all these three elements were present in Lord Denning’s judgments. If all Judges were like Lord Denning we would have an ideal situation. Aires Rodrigues T1 - B30, Ribandar Retreat Ribandar - Goa - 403006 Mobile: 9822684372 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Protect Goa's natural beauty Support Goa's first Tiger Reserve Sign the petition at: http://www.goanet.org/petition/petition.php ---------------------------------------------------------------------------