Frictionless Relationship Between Bar & Bench Furthers Purpose Of Justice : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while closing the contempt case against senior advocate Yatin Oza, stressed that the Bench and the Bar are “two wheels of the chariot of justice” and friction between them has the potential to erode public faith in the justice delivery system.A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that the legal profession and the judiciary are intrinsic pillars of the justice system and both must maintain mutual respect and restraint. The Court said the case reflected an “unfortunate friction” between the Bench and the Bar after Oza, a senior advocate and Bar Association President, publicly made allegations against the Gujarat High Court and its registry during the COVID-19 pandemic.“It is imperative to reflect upon the foundational relationship between the Bar and the Bench. They are inextricably linked, serving as indispensable wheels in the chariot of justice. To steer through the complex terrain of the law and achieve fair, equitable outcomes, these wheels must move in perfect tandem, bound by the shared devotion to uphold the rule of law,” the Court observed."The relationship between the Bar and the Bench is like two sides of the same coin, forever complementing each other. Candor and honesty on either side must also be met with patience and dignity on the other. A friction-less relationship between the Bar and the Bench only furthers the purpose of justice and forwards the cause of those seeking justice. The Bench, however, must adopt a somewhat 'parental' temperament, it cannot lose sight of the fact that sometimes legal practice can be immensely high-stakes," the Court added.The Court noted that Oza had described the Gujarat High Court as a “gambling den” during a live press conference on June 5, 2020, while raising grievances regarding listing of matters during virtual court functioning. The Gujarat High Court later initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against him.At the same time, the Supreme Court recorded that Oza was functioning as President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association during the first wave of COVID-19 and was under pressure from lawyers, especially junior advocates facing severe financial distress due to non-functioning of physical courts. The judgment referred to letters and resolutions placed on record showing complaints by lawyers regarding e-filing, non-circulation of matters and objections raised by the registry.The Court reproduced portions of Oza's resignation letter as President of the Bar Association in which he said junior lawyers were in “pathetic and disastrous financial situation” and that some advocates had started working as food delivery personnel to survive during the pandemic.While holding that the remarks made by Oza were unjustified, the Supreme Court also underlined the special responsibilities of both judges and lawyers in preserving institutional dignity. The Court said, “Such an impasse between the two most intrinsic pillars of our legal system has the potential to wither the faith of public at large in the justice delivery mechanism.”The Court said criticism of the judiciary cannot descend into scandalous allegations, but also observed that institutional systems can always be improved and grievances may be conveyed in proper language. The Court observed that constitutional courts in India have historically shown magnanimity while balancing institutional dignity with opportunities for reform.While the Bar acts as the fearless voice of litigants, the Bench functions as the ultimate custodian of the Constitution, tasked with interpreting the law, safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring impartial and timely justice, the Court highlighted.The Court emphasised that the functioning of both institutions was deeply interconnected and misconduct by either side could damage the justice delivery system. It observed that indiscipline by the Bar obstructs the functioning of courts, while an engaged and patient judiciary enables advocates to discharge their duties fearlessly.“Furthermore, it is the cardinal imperative that neither conducts itself in a manner that casts a shadow of disrepute upon the other. The dignity of the Bench and the honour of the Bar are mutually reflective. Conduct that diminishes the stature of one inevitably tarnishes the sanctity of both. If one player loses its footing, the other cannot stand tall. The tremor of an individual's fault resonates throughout the entire ecosystem, risking the equilibrium of institution itself”, the Court observed,The Court further said that while accountability was important, judicial authority must be exercised with restraint and corrective guidance instead of punitive destruction.“However, as with co-members within a family, a fault committed by one does not warrant the other to resort to punitive destruction. According to the accountability is paramount, but it must always be balanced with a patience to guide reform. The court wields considerable...

Frictionless Relationship Between Bar & Bench Furthers Purpose Of Justice : Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Frictionless Relationship Between Bar & Bench Furthers Purpose Of Justice : Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers