Power Always Must Be Accompanied With Grace

Rhetorically, the Bar and the bench are by design Siame twins. In practice however , one is the proverbial Big Brother. By systemic mechanics the later is far too dependent on the former on a day to day basis to perpetuate the myth that they are in fact operationally but two sides of the same coin. Perhaps it is not a coin of popular functional currency. The issue yet again comes up for mention and concern in the context of a young lawyer green behind the ears taking on a High Court judge whose grandeur and power are needed to only be stated to be realised. IN the midst of this over stated cliché of both being players in the same saga , we suddenly have two unlikely players throwing up the challenge that keeps erupting in the system. The reported facet of such incidents throws up the question as to whether the system is lopsided, imbalanced by design or worse. A moot question.

To be tearing into the forest of this controversy would be multiple trails, up hills aplenty, shed autumn leaves, contemporary political under currents, light and shade intricately chequered, truth sometimes even a causality at the hands of empty rhetoric, more sound than light, truth hidden midway between partisan viewpoints in a bipolar scenario .

I come with a caveat and a clear declaration that as a member of the Bar I am likely to be a tad biased in the favour of the voiceless in the Bar, the underdog in the seemingly balanced play of the dice. I truely echo:

But I beneath a rougher sea

Was whelmed in the deeper gulfs that be

It is always scientific to revisit your premise: Are members of the Bar and bench equals? Is this a glorious myth working to keep up an illusion at one end and strategy at another? How can a lop sided relationship with power at one end and a beneficiary at the other be equal? Linda Mulcahy points out “ the shape of the court , the configuration of the walls and barriers , the height of the partition within it , the positioning of the tables and even the choice of the materials are crucial to a broader and more nuanced understanding of judge craft. Time therefore to either redefine the equation or standardise the equation rather than just juxtaposition the two and glorify the hyphen.. IN case it is a case of equals , it is a case of one being more equal than the other.

Any mechanism to overcome the colonial hang over of the Lords will have to start with the spatial dynamics . The halo of the majesty and dignity needs an inhouse stock checking of validity and credibility in terms of contemporaneity if nothing else. The theatre must be sans theatrics.

The recent incident in Andhra Pradesh points out yet again the felicity, the temptation and the power with which a judge can call a lawyer at will. This is a singular incident that for some inexplicable reason found more eye balls. The judge in case has not been known for baggage or temper. No this is nothing in his defence. The manner of conduct is surely outside the realm of the designed comfort zone of advocacy and free debate. In recent times social media posts have multiple instances of the judges being rude and In other contexts would fall under the category of being boorish or bark. Not too far behind is my recollection of a judge in a vacation court hearing lawyers seeking that their cases being taken up for hearing turn with a haughty air and declare : rejected.

How equal then is the young lawyer to the 'two sides of the same coin' test? Multiple layers removed. Not so much for sheer lack of knowledge and experience but multiple other onion layers. Dependence on “discretionary relief”, the distance , the guarded dignity, the stakes of delivery to the client by the young lawyer, the My Lord echoes by the successful seniors and list is endless. While it is fine to fault the young adventurous lawyer for being under prepared and over confident, we may also like to visit what the Supreme Court said of its brethren : highest standard of propriety and probity; higher than expected of a layman or an advocate “

It is thus certain that the relationship between the two is pivotal, should be on an even keel and the bench must be , to say the least be polite in its demeanour. Unfortunately it does not happen . As a lawyer I am hoping to see the Supreme Court comes up with an in house SOP. Time this was arrived at , may be even by mutual consent between the Bar Council of India and body representing judges. Being rude, is not part of any ones occupation. Not of a constitutional authority. Power always must be accompanied with grace. The incidents of judges being insolent are on the increase. The Bar often takes it silently. Yes it does protest collectively, but rarely. We see instances of judges shout at lawyers on social media. This does not augur well for the institution. It is nice that the collective Bar does not retaliate. This is neither a hidden threat not a healthy solution. Those riding high horses, will do well to dismount. The incident from AP summarises a pattern, a tendency and a assumption not emanating from the constitution. In screams for correction. No time better than now. It would do well to recall Virginia Woolf who said It was a miserable machine , an inefficient machine, the human apparatus for painting or feeling; it always broke down at the critical moment, heroically one must force it on. “ Thus we look forward for such heroics, and a bit of judicial statesmanship and this surely is not asking for too much.

Without it sounding a case of whataboutery, it is intriguing that the incident got the attention of the SCBA social media traction ,and even more that their proactive stance was dealt with positively by the Apex Court It ends with a degree of predictability. Importantly, the Apex Court dealt with the issue with an appreciative sense of urgency. They believed that if you skirt with an issue for long the skirt gets bigger. Immediacy was in itself a critical response. The Apex Court speaking through the CJI said giving the case a quietus “—members of the judiciary at all levels ought to exhibit patience, compassion and a spirit of encouragement , particularly towards young entrance to the legal profession. The present juncture necessitates that young law graduates emerging from a wide variety of institutions are encouraged to join the Bar, …” If the court had left things there , it would have a predictable near formulistic and formalistic end to the issue pregnant with possibilities of recurrence.

It is judicial wisdom the court went to take a giant leap in the context of the relationship between the Bar and the bench when it issued far reaching directions . It required the High Courts to constitute “ a grievance redressal Committee which must associate representatives of the Bar Associations, and The Bar Council at the High Court level.” It required such Committees at all level. Levels. This hopefully would be implemented with required speed to ensure that the Bar feels far more empowered in the jurisprudential dialogue as the larger picture and the immediacy of effective service to the client. The later is a crucial factor. The citizen is already over awed by the halo of the legal system. The sustainability of the service obviously depends on its delivery. At a time when the whisper of the social media is growing into a glaring noise, this institution must like all other value verticals , do up its house keeping. Internal audit is always a better route to development than external interference or unstated frustrations.

Hopefully as the summer heat recedes and the fraternity gets back, they work with less fear or favour and more oxygen of confidence. A spat match is not the best scene in a court specially between the bar and the bench. To avoid this the forces must complement one another . A modest assessment of knowledge my members of the Bar and a matched assessment of power by the bench will help, hopefully.

Author is a Senior Advocate of Telangana High Court. Views are personal.