In an incident that underscores the importance of decorum in legal proceedings, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Monday (September 30) expressed his dismay at a litigant’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought an in-house inquiry against a former judge. The litigant, representing himself in court, had named retired Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi as a respondent, raising concerns over the perceived mishandling of a case involving his termination from service. This case has sparked a debate on the boundaries of judicial accountability and the conduct expected in court.
The Background of the Case
The litigant, who hailed from Pune and represented himself as a “party-in-person,” filed the petition in May 2018. The petition revolved around his alleged wrongful termination from service. Dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s final judgment, which dismissed his claims, the litigant accused Justice Ranjan Gogoi of “gross errors of law” in the verdict. According to him, Justice Gogoi had relied on an illegal statement when passing the judgment that led to his defeat in court.
His frustration led him to include Justice Gogoi as a respondent in his PIL, demanding an in-house inquiry against the former Chief Justice for what he perceived as a miscarriage of justice.
CJI Chandrachud’s Firm Response
When the litigant mentioned the petition in court, CJI Chandrachud did not hide his surprise or displeasure. The Chief Justice expressed his dismay, highlighting the importance of maintaining dignity in legal proceedings.
“How can you file a PIL with the judge as a respondent? There has to be some dignity. You cannot just say I want an in-house inquiry against a judge. Justice Ranjan Gogoi was a former judge of the Supreme Court. He retired as the Chief Justice of India. You cannot say I want an in-house inquiry against a judge because you did not succeed before the bench. Sorry, we cannot tolerate this,” CJI Chandrachud said, reprimanding the petitioner.
The CJI made it clear that dissatisfaction with a judgment is not grounds to launch a personal attack against a judge, especially one of the highest-ranking members of the judiciary. He reminded the litigant that the case had already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and any further action would require the filing of a curative petition – the last possible legal remedy in the judicial system.
Legal Boundaries and Decorum in the Courtroom
This case brings to light several key aspects of legal protocol. First, CJI Chandrachud highlighted the distinction between appealing a decision and holding a judge personally responsible for an unfavorable outcome. He pointed out that even when a High Court judgment is challenged in the Supreme Court, the judge from the High Court is never made a respondent in the case. Judicial decisions are based on law and facts, and personalizing a legal dispute is a violation of court etiquette.
The Chief Justice’s response reflects a broader commitment to upholding judicial independence. Allowing litigants to target individual judges for perceived wrongs would not only disrupt the legal process but could also erode public trust in the judiciary. As CJI Chandrachud pointed out, “Right or wrong, there is a final judgment by the Supreme Court. Your review has been dismissed. Now you have to file a curative. But you say you don’t want to file a curative.”
CJI’s comments emphasize that once all legal remedies are exhausted – including review and curative petitions – the case must be considered closed. Reopening it by filing PILs against individual judges can undermine the very fabric of the judicial system.
Language in Court: Maintaining Formality
During the hearing, another moment caught attention when CJI Chandrachud chastised the petitioner for informal language. The litigant, in the midst of his arguments, had used the casual term “yeah” instead of “yes.” The Chief Justice quickly corrected him, saying, “Don’t say Yeah. Say Yes. This is not a Coffee Shop. This is a Court. I am a little allergic to people saying Yeah.”
This exchange may seem minor, but it reinforces the seriousness and formality required in a courtroom setting. Courts are not casual spaces, and the language used within them must reflect their gravity. The Chief Justice’s correction also sends a message about the need to respect the decorum of the court, even in seemingly small matters.
A Lesson in Dignity and Accountability
The episode serves as a reminder to litigants and legal practitioners alike that the courtroom is a place of high ethical standards and professional decorum. The litigant’s decision to target a former Chief Justice was a breach of these standards, and CJI Chandrachud’s firm response reinforced the boundaries of appropriate conduct in such matters.
The Chief Justice also sought to educate the litigant about the procedural limitations of the legal system. Filing a PIL against a judge, particularly one who is retired, is not a valid course of action. In fact, the CJI went a step further, explaining that if the litigant agreed to remove Justice Gogoi’s name from the petition, the court’s Registry would consider processing it.
This highlights the balance between the right to seek justice and the need to respect the judicial process. The judiciary operates within a framework of laws and precedents, and while it is open to scrutiny, personal attacks on judges for delivering judgments should not be part of that scrutiny.
Conclusion
The case involving the litigant’s petition against Justice Ranjan Gogoi has illuminated a crucial issue regarding the decorum and respect expected in court proceedings. CJI Chandrachud’s firm stand serves as a strong reminder that the judiciary is not above accountability, but there are proper channels for addressing grievances. Personalizing disputes or demanding inquiries against judges for unfavorable verdicts is not the way forward. The judiciary’s integrity and the formal conduct in courts are essential to maintaining public confidence in the legal system.
By correcting both the litigant’s approach and his language, CJI Chandrachud has once again underscored the need for respect, dignity, and professionalism in the courtroom – qualities that are crucial to the rule of law.