The central importance of the Judge in our society underscores the importance of understanding the ways in which prospective Judges are selected and trained and of knowing the groups or individuals most deeply involved in that process. The training and reasons for selection determine, in part, the type of judiciary we will have. The role that the judiciary has played in different historical eras had depended as much on the type of men who became Judges as it has on constitutional rules that appear to set the outer limits of judicial action. Howsoever good the law is, if a person who ought not to have been made a Judge is appointed, then everything goes wrong. A poor appointee can be a blot on the bench for may years.
It would appear that the Judges are drawn from a narrow social background. Though the social climate has turned more democratic due to the efficiency of communication, there can be no doubt that social background of may Judges and the attitude of detachment to which they are conditioned during their formative years at the Bar, can produce difficulties of communication and understanding between them and people or lesser privilege and education who appear before them. The Judges with their background are less acquainted with the problems of poverty or of different pressures, loyalties and social values operating in different strata of the society. A Judge who fails to understand the behaviour of a person in the correct perspective tends to expect unrealistic standards of common sense and behaviour particularly from witnesses whose social background differs from his own. For making a good Judge it is desirable that those who aspire to become Judges should, during the course of their training and careers, have enjoyed opportunities of learning at close quarters something about the motives and pressures which have impact on the attitudes of the members of the community. For this, a Judge should have the power of imagination that can enable him to put himself in the place of the man standing before him. With such outlook he can use his knowledge more effectively.
Many appointees, when appointed have been subject specialists while at the Bar. On appointment they become jack-of-all trades. Those who have practiced essentially in criminal law are required to attend to civil law work and vice versa. Though these Judges have the ability to grasp the new subjects very quickly, it seems a little hard on the litigants in the initial cases they try, and there is wrong use of their talents, inasmuch as they are not either employed within their specialized fields, or given time and opportunity to acquire a more general knowledge of the law. Though there has been no provision for training before appointment there is a positive move now to ensure that the new Judges receive a modicum of training afterwards. There is a need to extend training and the Judges should be encouraged and be given the time to keep pace with the advances in learning particularly in the ac tuarial, sociological and psychological fields to bring about familiarity with the basic concepts, coupled with knowledge of trends in these subjects which would tend to induce in them a more sympathetic approach to their exponents.
The Judges themselves could be expected to know the areas in which they are most deficient. Therefore, during his training period which should be for three to six months, the Judge should be free to go into any Court he wished and to observe the trial procedures and techniques. He should have an opportunity to consult with criminologists, actuaries, social welfare experts, ecologists and other specialists during his training period. Regular refresher courses should be available to all Judges to enable them to keep abreast of developments in sociology, psychology, economics, medicine, etc. There is a considerable need for a Judicial college or an Institution of Judicial Administration to ensure high standards in the decision making process.
It is extremely difficult to prophesy how good a particular appointee will shape as a Judge. Behavioural defects may develop after the appointment and some Judges may abuse their position in a variety of ways. The values and standards which were normally existent ensuring the purity of judicial administration are now required to be enforced wherever laxity is detected. The very honour of the judicial system lies in the honesty of its constituents. The experience gives an indication that some kind of procedure of receiving and dealing with complaints would enhance public confidence in judiciary, lead to improved standards of judicial behaviour and may even provide a remedy in specific cases of injustice.
Independence of the judiciary has been a highly-prized feature of our Constitution. However, inviolability from informed criticism or investigation may ten to decrease confidence in the judiciary. There would be no fear of interference with the independence of judiciary if the scrutiny and investigation is done by the appellate or superior court. Care should however be taken to ensure that the disgruntled elements or unscrupulous litigants do not succeed in their design of disreputing a good Judge by hurling false and motivated pseudonymous or anonymous complaints which if countenanced would sound a death-knell of strong, forthright and independent Judges making them tense, apprehensive and indecisive. The complaints against Judges should therefore be carefully and delicately handled and if the higher judicial disciplinary authority finds, after appropriate departmental proceedings, that the incumbent is wanting in the basic qualities of a Judge there should be given no more opportunity to him to tarnish the image of this noble institution. The black sheep when they know that they are detected sometimes prefer to walk away.
The tendency of some lawyers to browbeat the subordinate Judges by threatening them on the basis of their acquaintances and easy approach to the Judges of the higher Courts having administrative control over them should be severely curbed. No subordinate Judge should countenance such threats or pressure and should bring such instances to the notice of their administrative heads since they amount to interference with the course of justice.
There should be brought about conditions so that the members of subordinate judiciary have ample opportunity to emulate the standards followed by their senior brethren. Just as a child imbibes in himself the virtues of his parents, the judicial officers will follow the high traditions of their torch-bearers. There should be no situation where they can raise a mocking eyebrow when exhorted to follow certain value standards of aloofness impartiality and integrity. It should be clear to them that the only way of fulfilling their career ambitions is to work with sincerity and honesty and not by intrigues, approaches, favours or spending in any manner on pomp and show to please their superiors whether on local visits or otherwise. They should know that they are trustees of the power constitutionally reposed in them and there should never be any abuse of that power. They must avoid favours direct or subtle and strive to ensure that no one even secretly dares to approach them in connection with their judicial work. The glorious traditions which the Judges or our superior courts have been so zealously guarding and preserving must be handed down to them during their training and in personal meetings.
The quality of Judges at various levels and their receptivity for a good grooming almost solely depends upon the principal source of their appointment namely the Bar. A vibrant, efficient and principled Bar will send judges with an acceptable outlook and standards. To foster understanding, respect and support of our courts is one of the most solemn duties of the organized Bar. It can have no greater interest than the judicial system of the country, no more pressing activity than the work and well-being of the bench and participation in the selection process by suggesting the names of its willing and worthy members. The leaders of the Bar Association can suggest panels of such names to the Chief Justice, who can consider them for selecting the right persons on merits.
For providing a useful source to fill up the high judicial offices the willing lawyers should be identified. If a lawyer who may be willing does not indicate his intention or gives contrary indication in public, he is likely to remain a private citizen. The offer to a high judicial post should be taken by them to be a public honour and ordinarily it should not be turned down. It is very essential that the knowledgeable, experienced and sincere lawyer must be attracted to these posts so that they do not get distributed amongst others under the guise of non-availability of proper incumbents. The Advocate General and the organized Bar must therefore make conscious efforts to ascertain in confidence, the willingness of the worthy lawyers who have sufficient knowledge and experience and they should periodically forward the panel of such lawyers for selection and eventual appointment.
The younger lot who aspire to join judiciary at an earlier stage must try to gain as much court experience as possible, form study groups to discuss the points of law arising in various cases and to solve the points confronting them in the matters they conduct. The deserving young lawyers should be given sufficient incentive to remain in the profession. The Bar Associations can organize training and refresher courses for its members and expose them to the standards of behaviour expected from them.
The members of the Bar are the backbone of the judicial system. They are naturally aware of the role expected of them in the court proceedings. They should resolve to see that each brief they handle is prepared by them on facts and in law. They also should ensure that the courts work full time and that their matters are taken up in their turn for hearing and not unnecessarily adjourned. They would be justified in expecting punctuality in the working of the courts. Both the Judges and lawyers must respect the timings appointed for court work. Waste of even fifteen minutes in each working session either due to non-availability of the Judge or a lawyer works out to a loss of atleast two full working days in a month. If this happens in ten courts the loss would be twenty working days of one court which means the effective Judge strength of the courts is reduced by at least one Judge, if all thes e were single Judge benches. All this at whose cost ? Lawyers and Judges should therefore conduct the work keeping foremost the interest of those who await the outcome of process and who have no say in their grooming. Mere appreciation of each other that has no relation to the actual functioning of the court will not be enough. Good grooming is relevant only in the context of the quality of the output of work. There has therefore to be a concerted effort of correcting each other to bring about a work culture where the Judges feel obliged to take up causes and ensure that public time is not unnecessarily wasted and the lawyers co-operate in the proceedings by their active and effective participation, by avoiding adjournments, by guiding the Judge on facts and in law so that he can reach a just and correct conclusion.
There should be no place for mistrust or suspicion in the judicial functioning. The Judges and lawyers belong to the same fraternity and cannot be expected to behave like total strangers in the society. However, socialization should not degenerate into any private discussion on the facts of any pending or likely case, or any personal favours, direct or indirect, or a political or social pressure calculated to prejudice the outcome of any judicial proceeding.
Ultimately the moral fiber of these two important constituents of the judicial system, their conscious effort to treat the functioning of the court as a constitutional trustee of the society can groom them to be good lawyers and better judges.
http://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/Articles/grooming.htm
