Chief Justice's Remarks: A Test of Judicial Temperament

Summary Box: Chief Justice Surya Kant's remarks from the bench on May 15 have sparked a controversy, raising questions about the standard that governs when a judge speaks from the bench and the speech wounds. The clarification that followed has not closed the controversy, with many questioning the Chief Justice's use of derogatory language.

What is Judicial Temperament?

Judicial temperament is a critical aspect of a judge's role, as it determines how they interact with litigants, lawyers, and the public. It is the ability to remain impartial, composed, and respectful, even in the face of adversity. In his Storrs Lectures at Yale in 1921, Benjamin Cardozo wrote that a judge should "draw his inspiration from consecrated principles" and exercise a discretion "informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life."

The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life

The Supreme Court has named the convention of judicial temperament twice. The first was the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Full Court on May 7, 1997. This document outlines the values that judges should uphold, including respect for the law, impartiality, and courtesy. The second was Chief Election Commissioner vs M.R. Vijayabhaskar, decided by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah on May 6, 2021. In this judgment, the court emphasized the importance of judicial temperament and the need for judges to maintain a dignified and respectful demeanor.

The Cockroach Janta Party

The Chief Justice's remarks have also contributed to an internet phenomenon, the formation of a meme party, the Cockroach Janta Party. The X handle of the satirical collective has now been withheld, following a direction of the Centre, after inputs from the Intelligence Bureau. This move has sparked concerns about the government's attempt to suppress free speech and satire.

The Blocking of the CJP's Account

The blocking of the CJP's account points to where the real problem lies — not in the restless young of this country, employed or unemployed, with or without dubious degrees. It lies, instead, in the too-frequent resort by the state, strong-armed and hard-eyed, to weaponisation of the law to quell voices of satire and humour, difference and dissent.

The Institution of the Judiciary

The institution of the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court of India, is — and it must be — the space where individual freedoms and liberties are restored and protected. The SC is, after all, the custodian of the constitutional guarantees for individual rights, including the right to free speech.

The Way Forward

The controversy surrounding the Chief Justice's remarks highlights the need for judges to maintain a high standard of judicial temperament. The institution of the judiciary must continue to uphold the principles of impartiality, respect, and courtesy, even in the face of adversity. The government must also refrain from attempting to suppress free speech and satire, and instead, work towards creating a culture of respect and tolerance.

The Numbers That Matter

• ▸The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding the right to free speech, including in landmark judgments such as Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).
• ▸The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Full Court on May 7, 1997, outlines the values that judges should uphold, including respect for the law, impartiality, and courtesy.
• ▸The Chief Election Commissioner vs M.R. Vijayabhaskar judgment, decided by Justice