Trial on Judicial Diversity

Every one loves to watch courtroom dramas. Let me reckon  every child’s favorite  movie Tim Burtons  film Alice in Wonderland ,Crispin Glover who  played the Knave of Hearts  who in the classic tale is put on trial for stealing the Queen of Hearts’ tarts. The trial was a farce comedy. Sentence first verdict afterwards is the motto of the farcical trial. The trial is about twelve pathetic puppets .Everyone associated with a trial are terribly bullied. It is interesting  to watch someone displaying  frantic  unrestrained skills .The trial of Knave is a non sense trial  but it intersects real trials to constitute effective satire.The judge  by the way was a king (dauntless as  Karnan of the great epic  Mahabarat ). Since he donned  the crown over the baldpate it was bothersome. He cast aside his costume and barged into the trial hall. Every one whispered  That’s the judge .He rationalizes  and warns the  jury. Consider your verdict,” the King said to the jury. Oh he is a paradigm judge therefore robust, sensitive , nonchalant , enthusiastic, committed lawyer and does not spend his time exclusively with the law, an independent thinker who works well with others .Spectators in the gallery  whisper  such abject behavior and intellectual travesty are inconceivable except in a topsy-turvy world. It prompts the bench not to be courteous . A  Rabbit hastily interrupted. “There’s a  great deal to come before that! Ah yes, a reminder to  the bench to keep an open mind – and to remember if one has to wear different hats for different reasons. it is best not to wear both hats at the same time. Thank heaven  for the sake of zealous counsels  like Alice.Jurors  did not have  the draconian power of contempt in the face of the court which would have allowed that decapitation. It is only by reminding oneself of Wonderland that one is not tempted to impose at least venial punishment  on the counsels .

Let me now turn to a serious vein. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

The only way in which one can be worthy of the office is by submerging self in the performance of the duties of the office. A judge should be only the voice of the law. As Cicero (Roman philosopher ) said, "While the law is voiceless magistrate, the magistrate is law made vocal." It is arrogant presumption for a judge to pose as anything more, and gross indiscretion for him to assert his own voice. The only way in which he can avoid violation of the injunction, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," is by pronouncing, not his personal will, but the judgment of the law

Let’s get down to brass tacks .The system of  choosing judges makes every one  to suspect. The present judicial appointment process is also procedurally flawed by being too secret. It is a defect in our system of appointing judges that there are no clearer and more widely-known procedures of consultation and inquiry in relation to higher  judiciary appointments. Quota system should not be embraced for judicial appointments, It must be ensured that everyone who is qualified can be considered for judicial appointment. Confidence in our judicial system depends on it. Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or social origin, property, birth or status, except that a requirement, that a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the country concerned which shall not be considered discriminatory. Almost every  demographic group is underrepresented when compared to their share of the nation’s population but there should not be any touchstone  to represent any section of society, or to advance or defend any particular set of values. Indeed  judiciary  to act  in that way would be acting in violation of the judicial ethics . The essential qualities required of a judge are integrity and independence.

If judges are to be chosen for  caste representation  ,sex or their social background, rather than for their learning, experience and moral character, a decline would almost certainly occur in the efficiency of the Bench. The sex, religion or social background of a person are irrelevant to that person's qualifications for judicial office. It would be quite wrong if those responsible for judicial appointments were to set about appointing   judges of particular social, religious or caste simply in order to make the judiciary appear more 'representative' of the community.

No considerations of party politics, sex, religion, or caste must enter into judicial appointments. Charisma ,integrity, professional ability, experience, standing and capacity are the only criteria, coupled of course with the requirement that the candidate must be physically capable of carrying out the duties of the post, and not disqualified by any personal unsuitability.

Judges, like the clergy, should be kept unspotted from the world. Any personal interest, selfish concern, or party consciousness, corrupts not only the judge but the entire system . Any want of honest detachment in the judge undermines public faith in judicial administration. As has frequently been stated, it is quite as important to the public that judges should be free from the appearance of evil as that they should be free from actual evil.

It is a defect in our system of appointing judges that there are no clearer and more widely-known procedures of consultation and inquiry in relation to judicial appointments.If the government possess formal   powers for selecting and appointing  judges ,selection will  be swayed by political patronage. Persons being considered for appointment to judicial office should not be put into a competitive position before a political body. Participation in judicial appointments and promotions by the Executive or Legislature is discrepant with judicial independence. Any consideration of possible changes to the present method of appointing  judges to higher judiciary  must, of course, derive from an assessment of the adequacy or  deficiencies of the current appointment process.

Judges are not representatives of any group or constituency .Turn down the idea that there should be prescriptive rules or a quota as to who should be chosen as judge ,such as a minimum number of men or women, representation of community, religion  and caste Merit’ must remain the overriding standard, but it should not remain undefined.

There is plenty of room for argument about what constitutes merit in judicial selection. Integrity ,erudition, encyclopedism are the essential  ingredient for judgeship . Neither fat  income –tax return  nor the fact that cause list is  herded with the name of a particular Advocate  should be set as standards  to enter the domain.A roaring practice may be a resultant of causes of various shades and kinds.One who makes a conscientious choice of his briefs is apt to have a lesser brief  than one for whom all is fish that comes to his net.The legal profession today is an assemblage of traders and one has to know the arcane and gizmos of the trade to be fortunate in it. Such traders should not be permitted to climb the ladder to the bench.The ground gained by the erudite should not be damaged. Judgeship should not become virtually  a gift in the hands of  a select few.  There is a rainbow of choices that can and should be made. Diversity is the door of opportunity that should be open to everyone who wants to serve the egalitarian  society, respect and honour judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the system .To achieve that outcome there ought to be full confidence that the best and most suitable potential appointees will submit to the selection process.

K.SURESH BABU,

ADVOCATE,9,RAJA

COLONY,SECOND MAIN ROAD,

COLLECTORS OFFICE ROAD,CANTONMENT,

TRICHY-620001