Divine Duty of Judges

Attended a training program on 'Disciplinary Procedures' by Mr. Benny P Thomas, a leading lawyer practicing at the High Court of Kerala, today. The presentation was somewhat okay, if you factor in considerations like this was not his principal job. True to the custom followed by judges and leading lawyers of the High Court, he came dressed in a three-piece suit and was quite an object to behold behind our simple lectern.

While going on with the program, which was aimed at imparting some knowledge about conducting internal enquiries as part of imposing disciplinary proceedings against delinquent employees of our organisation, Mr. Thomas suddenly turned excited and exhorted the participants to think hard about the divine duty they're going to perform while deciding whether the person was guilty or not. In a tremulous voice he declared that judgment is not an easy matter and he personally knew many judges who couldn't eat or sleep well before pronouncing verdicts in some cases involving murder. We didn't understand what piqued our gentle instructor to suddenly come down so heavily against the hapless trainees. 

While at it, it struck me as odd that whether jurisprudence can indeed be termed divine. Judging (no pun intended) from past experiences, we see many instances where the presiding judges turned out verdicts challenging common sense. A recent one is the decree outlawing application of sun-control films on car windscreens. In a literal interpretation of the relevant law, the court decided the practice which actually saved fuel by reflecting some of the heat back. At the same time, it allowed the use of curtains which would ensure privacy but no fuel efficiency. India, which imports most of the oil it burns in its cars, is the net sufferer in the form of fuel wastage incurred due to the additional load on car air-conditioners. So what did the court gain in banning sun-control film and allowing curtains in its place? So much for divine duty.

If you look at the huge number of verdicts set aside by a higher court on appeal, you'd wonder whether some kind of accountability measures need to be implemented for judges in lower courts. There can be no argument if the higher court tones down or up the sentence a bit. Every judge may be swayed a little by human emotions which is quite understandable. But in many of the cases, even the findings are totally reversed leaving the public doubtful about the prudence of the trial judge. Once again, we doubt whether he has discharged his divine duty in a responsible way.

So, before boasting about the godly duty they have to perform, the judicial officers may think twice about the impact of their pronouncements on the society and common man.