-- RVR
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud (“CJI” for short) heads the
Supreme Court of India. He wrote a
letter of 19 July 2023 to the chief justices of high courts in all the states and
union territories. It is there on social media. Now have a look in full.
Dear Chief Justice,
My
attention has been drawn to a communication dated 14 July 2023 addressed by the Registrar in charge of the Protocol Section of one of our High Courts to the General Manager of the regional Railway establishment. The letter adverts to a Judge of the High Court who was travelling on a train with his spouse. The letter proceeds to state thus:
“The train was late by more than three hours. In
spite of repeated intimation
to the T.T.E, no G.R.P
personnel were found in the coach to meet the requirements as desired
by His Lordship. Further, no Pantry Car workers
attended His Lordship for
providing refreshments despite repeated calls. Moreover, when
the call was made
to the Pantry Car Manager
X X X X X X, the call was
not picked.
The aforesaid incident caused great inconvenience and
displeasure to His Lordship. In this regard, the
Hon'ble Judge has desired, that
explanation may be called
from the erring
officials of the
Railways, the
G.R.P Personnel and the Pantry
Car Manager pertaining to the inconvenience caused
to His Lordship due
to their conduct and
dereliction of duty.
I, therefore, request
you, kindly
call the explanation of the concerned officials
and send to this
Hon'ble Court, so that, the same
may be placed
before His Lordship for kind perusal.”
In order to
prevent further embarrassment to the High Court I have redacted identities from the extract of the above communication.
A Judge of the High Court does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnel. Hence, there was no occasion for an officer of the High Court to call for an explanation from the railway personnel “to be placed before His Lordship for kind perusal.” Evidently, the officer of the High Court in the above communication was carrying out a direction of the Judge of the High Court in this instance (“the Hon'ble Judge has desired").
The
communication which has been addressed by an officer of the High Court to the General Manager of the Railway establishment has given rise to justifiable disquiet both within and outside the judiciary. Protocol 'facilities' which are made available to Judges should not be utilised to assert a claim to privilege which sets them apart from society or as a manifestation of power or authority. A wise exercise of judicial authority, both on and off the Bench, is what sustains the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary and the confidence which society has in its Judges.
I am writing this
to all the Chief Justices of the High Courts with an earnest request to share my concerns with all colleagues across the High Courts. Self reflection and counselling within the judiciary is necessary. Protocol facilities which are made available to Judges should not be used in a manner that is liable to result in inconvenience to others or to bring public criticism of the judiciary.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
(xxx) Dhananjaya Chandrachud
CJI’s letter clearly reveals
the background facts that impelled him to tender some informal advice to the chief
justices of high courts. What do those facts tell us? Do they justify the CJI’s response, though concerned and well-intentioned?
A railway traveller – here he happens to be a high
court judge – was put to inconvenience by more than a three-hour delay on a
train journey he undertook. More than a delayed journey, his intimations and
repeated telephone calls to men on duty for help, including refreshments, during
the hold-up were unheeded and neglected. We
may well take the traveller’s word for it, for he would not be spending time to
make serious imagined complaints on which anyone can be found out. He did not urge that on his word the erring
officials on that train be summarily punished. He was just calling for an
explanation for the ordeal he bore. Any
citizen who goes through such a horrid experience on a train will first want to
know why it happened. That is what that judge
did, calling attention to his inconvenience and displeasure and seeking an explanation.
If an explanation was provided to the judge (like, for example, a problem
on the tracks ahead due to sabotage, all key railway personnel on the train
having to get down to investigate and being in touch with higher officials –
even keeping aside the pantry issue) he may be satisfied and may just rue his
bad time. Judge or no judge, a railway passenger
can expect efficient service from the railway system and, at any rate, to be
apprised of what was going on when his journey was halted and delayed for more
than three hours, and to be assisted in getting some refreshments or to be informed
with an apology why no help at all could be forthcoming when he had to wait that
long.
Should not officials of a railway be responsive to its customers and
engage with them, at least when customers are perplexed over hours of delay and
are left without food or nourishments that cannot be fetched from outside? This was the issue highlighted in the judge’s
letter to the general manager of a railway.
He was not asking for any extraordinary favour or concession or any
special treatment that his fellow-passengers were to be denied.
We know that India cannot pride itself on efficiency and courtesy in public transportation, though off late things are improving slowly. The least a harassed railway passenger wants to do is to complain when he suffers much, to ask what happened and why, and to expect action against officials if found responsible for their neglect and bad service. If a judge does it in India, that too politely, that is good for everyone.
In his letter to chief justices
of high courts, the CJI points out two specific issues about the
travelling judge as causing concern. The CJI writes:
A judge of the High
Court does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnel. Hence there
was no occasion for an officer of the High Court to call for an explanation
from the railway personnel "to be placed before His Lordship for kind
perusal"
Here the high court
judge was not moving to take disciplinary action against anyone. So, a judge
taking or initiating disciplinary action himself against railway personnel is
not in issue here. The judge was just seeking an explanation for the obvious
inconvenience caused to him, like any citizen would want to do. And, it is too
much to presume that the travelling judge sought an explanation from higher-ups
in the railway as a prelude to initiate disciplinary action against the erring
lower-level officials or to commence a suo motu judicial proceeding – if that
really happens, the judge will win the least approbation or sympathy from anywhere.
Next, the CJI writes:
Protocol ' facilities
' which are made available to judges should not be utilised to assert a claim
to privilege which sets them apart from society or as a manifestation
of power or authority
There is nothing wrong
in the letter written by the protocol office of the high court to the general
manager of the railway – as quoted by the CJI. That letter speaks about the enormous
inconvenience caused to the travelling judge by a three-hour delay on his train
journey, his displeasure over what he experienced during the delay and his
desire to have an explanation from the railway. It does not matter whether the judge himself
wrote that letter under his hand or some officer of the high court wrote on the
advice of the judge. After all, the railway
has to offer explanation for what the judge says he went through. That is what
the judge and anyone interested in an efficient public transport service would like
to know. Nothing more to it, really.
We see many judges of
the supreme and of high courts, and their spouses, visiting the Tirupati Balaji
temple and the Rameswaram temple. Who would talk to or write to the concerned
temple authorities for a smooth and easy arrangement for such temple visits of
judges and their families? We should not
fault any officer of the registry of those courts if such officer is involved
in conversations or correspondence with concerned temple authorities on those personal
visits of judges and their spouses. Nor
does any such involvement point to something done "to assert a claim
to privilege which sets judges of superior courts apart from society or
as a manifestation of power or authority.
The legal fraternity knows that judges of superior courts
bear a huge burden in their minds every working day. They need the assistance of officers of the court
registry to communicate on many things under instructions given, so judges save
their energy for heavy reading up, concentration and dictating judgements. So it is understandable that the travelling
judge instructed an officer of the high court to write a letter to the general manager
of the railway, with inputs provided by the judge.
I guess that a good majority of the public who read the CJI's letter
would sympathise with the travelling judge for the difficult time he went
through. They could feel that, in the CJI’s letter, the focus of the whole
affair was unwittingly turned away from the sufferings of travellers on a train
delayed by more than three hours, and that it finally rested unimportantly on a
protocol officer conveying a passenger-judge’s agonies to the general manager
of the railway. And, of course, the travelling judge had not asked for or
hinted any disciplinary action against anyone connected with his train journey.
I think most ordinary people will applaud the high court judge for doing
something which they have no time or inclination to do, even if they had
travelled on the train that judge had taken. That is the plight and worth of ordinary people
in our country, that is Bharat. In
public transportation, much needs to change for the better in India. A nudge in that direction was the letter written
on behalf of a travelling judge, wanting to know why he suffered his ordeal.
Better if the CJI had practised the pause.
* * * * *
Author:
R. Veera Raghavan,
Advocate, Chennai
