By Adv. Vinayak (Mama)D. Porob
The judiciary is the final constitutional institution to which every citizen turns when all other remedies have failed. Its authority rests on public confidence and any act that tends to lower the dignity of the courts weakens the rule of law itself.
An advocate even when appearing in person remains an officer of the court. The ethical obligations of the legal profession do not cease merely because the advocate is a litigant. Using derogatory expressions against a judge or flinging papers before the Bench is inconsistent with the dignity expected of an advocate and has no place in a court of law.
There is a clear distinction between fearless advocacy and conduct that undermines the authority of the court. Judicial orders may be challenged through appeals, reviews or other legal remedies. Judicial functioning may also be subjected to fair and reasoned criticism. However, disrespectful conduct inside a courtroom cannot be justified in the name of dissent or frustration.
Such incidents affect far more than the individuals involved. Litigants, young lawyers, court staff and members of the public witness these proceedings. If advocates openly disrespect the court, public confidence in the justice delivery system is inevitably weakened. The greatest casualty is not the individual judge but the credibility of the judiciary itself.
Transparency must coexist with institutional dignity. Instead of unrestricted live streaming, every court proceeding should be officially audio visually recorded and securely preserved as part of the judicial record. Such recordings should be made available only in accordance with law whenever required to examine complaints or determine allegations against advocates, litigants, court staff or judicial officers. An official recording is the most reliable evidence of what actually transpired in court and prevents controversy based on selective video clips.
India’s judiciary undoubtedly faces serious challenges including delays and mounting pendency. These issues demand urgent reform. Yet no delay or dissatisfaction can justify conduct that lowers the authority of the courts. Institutional reform must always be pursued through constitutional methods and lawful remedies.
The Bench and the Bar are equal partners in the administration of justice. Their relationship is founded on mutual respect and shared responsibility. Every advocate must remember that respect shown to the court is not respect for an individual judge. It is respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the institution that safeguards the rights and liberties of every citizen.
Public confidence in the judiciary is one of the nation’s greatest constitutional assets. Once that confidence is eroded the damage extends beyond any individual case. Preserving the dignity of the judiciary is not merely a professional obligation. It is a constitutional duty owed by every stakeholder in the administration of justice.
(Personal opinion of the writer.)
