Judges Are Artists In Their Own Right, Says Justice Chandrachud
Similarly, as novelist shape the traits of the characters in their work, judges rely on the facts and circumstances presented to them in order to make a story they accept to be the most plausible one in the conditions of each case. Like essayists, judges are natural reason provider, and a ton of their innovative reasoning is logical, said Supreme Court Justice DY Chandrachud, at Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access’ yearly meeting on Law and Storytelling.
Explaining on this idea, Justice Chandrachud said that an author composes a story with a specific goal in mind since it feels right, yet the account must be upheld with a plot and all around built characters. “In like manner, judges frequently have a solid feeling of which way a case ought to be chosen. Be that as it may, great judges constantly prefer to clarify their choices,” he included.
At the occasion, Justice Chandrachud portrayed a few stories – of a youthful undergraduate who was supported by NR Narayana Murthy to adopt the thought process of a legal counselor, a 85-year-elderly person who petitioned for a separation in the Parsi wedding court, the instance of the Speluncean Explorers that brought about five unique assessments on similar actualities – that impacted him over the most recent 36 years of his legitimate vocation.
He referred to law scholar Ronald Dworkin to state that law resembles a chain novel – progressive translators and authors chip away at consequent parts and expand on what has just been composed. After a writer composes the main section, the second part expounds on the first and pursues its plotline. The prudence in each resulting part is decreased, he called attention to.
Similarly, precedents in courts serve as a chain of command, as a chain of coherence, which purports to limit the discretion that each judge has as the body of precedents grow. But judges have the power to distinguish a precedent. Underlying the ability to refer is your human ability to do what is right. – D.Y. Chandrachud.
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
In the speech, D.Y. Chandrachud J. indirectly talked about principle of natural justice-
The maxim ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ literally means that the man should not be the judge in his own cause i.e. the judge must be impartial. This is also known as rule against bias. The word ‘bias’ is derived from the French word ‘biais’ meaning oblique as opposed to straight. Bias may be defined as a pre-conceived opinion or a pre-disposition or pre-determination to decide a case or an issue in a particular manner does not leave the mind open conviction. It is a condition of mind which sways judgments and renders a judge unable to exercise impartially in a particular case. Bias stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word ‘malice’ which in common acceptation means and implies ‘spite’ or ‘ill-will’. Bias and Malafide are different. Mala fide means ‘in bad faith’. Malafide intention does not invalidate the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; only it affects the decision of the authority in any capacity. It is settled principle that any order or decision made by any public body or an inferior tribunal, suffering from the vice of malafide would be quashed. In the rule of bias, the presiding officer is interested in the benefit of one of the party with which his own interest is attached. In the malafide intention, the interest primarily is of the officer exercising his power with such an intention.
DUTY TO PRIVDE REASONING
A judge is an elected or appointed official who conducts court proceedings. Judges must be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law. Judges must also recognize that justice means more than just interpreting the law — they must also show compassion and understanding for the people on both sides of the case.
Judges are bound to provide reason for their judgement.