Justice Markandey Katju criticises ex-CJI DY Chandrachud’s courtroom style, quoting “A much-talking judge is an ill-tuned cymbal,” urging Supreme Court judges to practise restraint and constitutional discipline.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju has written a note to the sitting judges of the apex court, raising concerns over courtroom conduct, constitutional overreach, and collegiality on the bench. In his terms, “brotherly advice,” Justice Katju urges the judiciary to uphold silence, restraint, and constitutional propriety while safeguarding the dignity of the institution.
As a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, he said,
“I feel compelled to share certain observations and concerns about recent developments in our apex court. My intention is not to offend, but to offer this as the respectful, elder-brotherly advice of someone who has walked the same path and deeply values the dignity of the judiciary.”
Some judges, including former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, have developed the habit of talking excessively during court proceedings. As Sir Francis Bacon, former Lord Chancellor of England, aptly remarked,
“A much talking judge is an ill-tuned cymbal.”
The primary role in courtroom exchanges belongs to the lawyers; judges must intervene only to seek clarification or to ensure proceedings stay on track. He shared a memory of a visit to the British High Court of London,
“During my visit to the British High Court in London, I was struck by the pin-drop silence in the courtroom. The judge listened intently, asking occasional questions in a calm voice. This created an atmosphere of serenity, dignity, and focus—something our courts would do well to emulate.”
ALSO READ: Why Former Justice Markandey Katju Says He Will Never Be Allowed to Visit Pakistan?
The Indian Constitution, under Article 227, grants High Courts supervisory powers over the subordinate judiciary. However, there is no equivalent provision granting the Supreme Court supervisory control over the High Courts. Despite this, there have been instances where the Supreme Court has issued directions to High Courts, such as setting deadlines for case disposal, which, in my view, overstep constitutional boundaries.
The Chief Justice of a High Court alone determines which judge will hear which matters. It is neither proper nor constitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate that a specific High Court judge be barred from sitting on a particular bench, as was done recently concerning Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court. This move prompted a protest from 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court, a reaction that underscores the seriousness of the issue.
The Supreme Court has often cautioned High Courts against passing strong structures against lower court judges without granting them an opportunity to be heard. Yet, in a recent case, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan themselves appear to have committed the same error. Such actions are not only unfair but also erode the morale of the judiciary at the grassroots level.
A disturbing account from a retired Supreme Court judge suggests that Justice Mahadevan, the junior member of the bench in the matter, was not consulted before the order was dictated by Justice Pardiwala. If this is accurate, it reflects a worrying breach of judicial collegiality.
All judges on a bench, whether senior or junior, are equal in authority when exercising judicial functions. A bench exists so that two minds may deliberate together, not so that the junior judge merely endorses the senior’s views without input. If a judge disagrees with an order, they must have the courage and integrity to record a separate opinion.
Justice Mahadevan, if he disagreed, ought to have placed his own view on record. His failure to do so was, in my opinion, a lapse in judicial duty.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Markandey Katju
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES