Chief Justice of India Wrote a Letter of Advice. Does He Sound Right?

        -- 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