Role Of A Judge Often Requires Taking Unpopular Or Inconvenient Decisions: Justice Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath on Saturday (April 4) said that the role of a judge often demands courage to take decisions that may be unpopular or inconvenient, emphasizing that judicial independence is sustained by the willingness to uphold the law even under public scrutiny.

Speaking at a two-day Annual Conference of Judges of the District Judiciary on the theme "Re-shaping Dispensation of Justice: Transcending the Narratives", organized by the High Court in collaboration with the Gujarat State Judicial Academy (GSJA), Justice Nath underscored the ethical and institutional responsibilities that accompany judicial office.

On the virtue of courage in judicial functioning, the judge observed:

"The role of a judge often requires taking decisions that may be unpopular, inconvenient or subject to public scrutiny. Judicial independence is not an abstract principle but is sustained by the courage to uphold the law, even when it is difficult to do so."

Honesty Not A Distinguishing Virtue But A Foundational Requirement

Justice Nath also reflected on the concept of honesty in judicial office, stating that honesty is not an exceptional quality but the very foundation of the judicial role. He cautioned against treating honesty as a distinguishing virtue for judges.

"To describe a judge as honest, as though it were a distinguishing virtue is in a sense illogical. Honesty is not an attribute that elevates a judge above others; it is the very foundation on which the office itself rests. It is a sine qua non, a non-negotiable condition of judicial existence. A judge cannot choose to be honest; the system presumes and demands it," he said.

He added that celebrating honesty as an exceptional trait risks lowering the standards expected of the judiciary, noting that the absence of honesty is not merely a shortcoming but a disqualification.

Technology Can Assist But Cannot Replace Judicial Decision-Making

Addressing the evolving role of technology in the justice delivery system, Justice Nath observed that while tools such as Artificial Intelligence can significantly enhance efficiency, their limits must be clearly defined.

Referring to the judiciary's digital transformation initiatives, Justice Nath said that the e-Courts Mission Mode Project has been central to this transition. He noted that the digitisation of court records and the introduction of electronic case management systems have enabled litigants and lawyers to access case information online, thereby improving transparency and efficiency in the justice delivery system.

He further referred to the adoption of virtual hearings, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that it marked a turning point for the judiciary. He noted that virtual hearings proved to be a valuable supplement to physical proceedings, especially for procedural matters, bail applications, and hearings involving parties located in different geographical regions.

On the use of Artificial Intelligence, Justice Nath said:

"An AI-assisted transcription system has improved accuracy and efficacy of recording court proceedings, reducing reliance on manual note-taking and enabling better documentation. These initiatives demonstrate that digital tools can significantly improve both efficiency and accessibility without compromising the integrity of judicial processes. AI represents the next frontier in judicial innovation. AI refers to systems that can process large volumes of data, identify patterns and generate outputs based on programmed algorithms.

In the judicial context, AI has the potential to assist in several areas. It can aid in case management, helping courts organise and prioritise cases more effectively. It can assist in legal research, enabling faster identification of relevant precedents. AI can also facilitate translation and transcription making court proceedings more accessible and efficient". 

He however said it is important to "clearly define the limits of AI in the judicial process". He said that adjudication is not a purely mechanical exercise but involves interpretation, discretion, and a nuanced understanding of facts and human circumstances.

"It requires empathy, fairness and a sense of justice that cannot be reduced to algorithmic outputs. AI systems operate on data that is fed into them. If that data contains biases, the outcomes generated may reflect those biases. AI must therefore be viewed as a tool to assist judges, not as a substitute for judicial decision making," he underscored. 

Speaking about the theme, the judge said, "In our constitutional democracy the judiciary occupies a position of profound responsibility. It is not merely an adjudicatory body; it is an institution that safeguards rights, upholds the rule of law and reinforces public confidence in governance. The legitimacy of this institution however, rests not only on the soundness of its decisions but also on its ability to remain accessible, efficient and responsive. It is in this broader context that today's theme assumes importance. To reshape the dispensation of justice is not to depart from our foundational principles but to strengthen them by adapting to contemporary realities. It calls upon us to reflect not only on the challenges we face but also on the opportunities that lie ahead".

On what justice means, the judge said that HLA Hart viewed law as a system deriving legitimacy from fairness; Ronald Dworkin emphasised law as integrity rooted in modern legal principles, and John Rawls conceived justice as fairness.

He said that these ideas find resonance in our constitutional framework. He however said that a system that is inaccessible cannot convey constitutional promises and so courts must therefore be not only fair but also accessible and efficient.

Pendency A Human Problem, Not Merely A Statistical One

On the challenges facing justice delivery system Justice Nath said:

"Despite strength of our constitutional framework, we must candidly acknowledge the challenges of our justice delivery system. Issue of pendency is widely known but pendency is not merely a statistical problem. It is a human problem. Behind every pending case lies a litigant waiting for resolution often with significant personal financial consequences. Closely related is the issue of delay. Justice requires careful deliberation, but prolonged delay risks undermining the very purpose of adjudication. As has often been said, justice delayed is justice denied, but equally, justice hurried may be justice buried. Challenge is to strike balance between thoroughness and timeliness".

Justice Nath further pointed out that geographical barriers themselves can impede access to justice, making the digital transformation of the judiciary a structural necessity in the present context. He observed that technology offers the possibility of reducing delays, improving efficiency, and bringing courts closer to the people.

The judge also emphasized that the majority of disputes are first adjudicated before trial courts, and therefore the district judiciary forms the bedrock of the justice delivery system. He noted that the strength and credibility of the judicial edifice ultimately rest on the quality of work performed at the trial level.

In this regard, he referred to Sir Edward Perry's "Seven Lamps of Advocacy", which identifies seven guiding virtues for legal professionals: honesty, courage, industry, wit, eloquence, judgment, and fellowship.

"Bar is mother of the bench. Today, that principal stands reinforced by institutional reality. Every judge begins as a lawyer and therefore carries into the courtroom the training of advocacy but also its responsibilities. The transition from the Bar to the Bench does not discard these values, it deepens them," he said.  

Concluding his address, Justice Nath stressed that while technology and institutional tools may evolve, the core of the justice delivery system will always remain the judge, guided by conscience and duty, and committed to preserving public faith in the institution.

"As I conclude, I would respectfully submit that a journey of reshaping the dispensation of justice is not merely about adopting new tools or embracing new narratives. It is about reaffirming our commitment to the very purpose of our office. Technology will continue to evolve…but at the heart of the justice delivery system will always remain the judge, guided not by algorithms but by conscience, not by convenience but by duty...Every order we pass, every judgment we deliver is not merely a decision between parties, it is a reaffirmation of public faith in the institution. Let us therefore strive to ensure that while we adapt to change, we remain anchored in our values."