NEW DELHI: Senior advocate and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta addresses troubling dynamics within the judiciary in his forthcoming book, “The Bench, the Bar and the Bizarre.” He discusses how the reverence shown to judges globally may lead some to develop a sense of superiority, resulting in what he terms “judicial bullying.”
Mehta’s book compiles various incidents from international courtrooms to spotlight this issue, suggesting that it reflects practices within the Indian judiciary. He writes, “Judicial bullying takes many forms. Some judges interrupt counsel incessantly, while others cross the line from firmness to humiliation.”
In his commentary, Mehta notes that although the judicial system is primarily intended for litigants, they often feel compelled to plead for their rights through their legal representatives, addressing judges with phrases such as “His Lordship’s kind permission.” He highlights a scenario where even an obvious legal absurdity from the bench may be met with deference before counsel can propose an alternative argument.
The tone of Mehta’s analysis is both critical and sardonic. As a current law officer, he addresses a common grievance among lawyers regarding patronizing judges who exploit their elevated positions. His tenure as Solicitor General, which began in 2018 and stands as the second longest after CK Daphtary’s 13-year period, adds significant weight to his observations. He emphasizes that while the judiciary is respected, it earns that respect through fairness, neutrality, and civility, rather than through the blunt application of contempt powers.
Mehta comments on judges’ aversion to external scrutiny of their work, which he argues is often perceived as an intrusion into judicial independence. He underscores the global challenges judges confront, such as overcrowded courtrooms and heavy caseloads, which can foster a stressful working environment. He reflects on how these pressures can contribute to judicial behavior, noting that judges often deal with unreasonable litigants and challenging lawyers.
Despite acknowledging these challenges, Mehta insists that they should not excuse incivility in the courtroom. He states that judges come from the same system and must navigate its pressures and complexities. The public, he argues, rightfully expects the highest standards from judges, as they cannot simply remove an errant judge as they might an arrogant politician. Echoing Arun Jaitley’s remarks on the issue, Mehta points out that judges are not directly accountable to the electorate.
He warns that any lapse in judicial composure could undermine the public’s faith in the judiciary. Mehta illustrates the power imbalance in court settings, explaining that when judges exhibit abusive or intolerant behavior, it creates a disparity in the courtroom. He asserts that a lawyer’s professional survival often depends on navigating this imbalance, leaving it to assertive litigants to bring attention to such misconduct.
In conclusion, Mehta’s book examines the necessity for elevated conduct within the judiciary, emphasizing that the effectiveness and integrity of the judicial system hinge upon the treatment of both litigants and lawyers.
