Law schools teach us how to read the
law. Court rooms teach us how to read the judge. In theory this is called as behavioral
school of jurisprudence. Read the judge then the law. This legal realism is the
most important teaching which almost all of us missed while getting bored with
the lectures of jurisprudence. Reading the judge is the most important part of
law practice.
Hitherto, law courts are presided over by human beings and like
any other human made system, courts are very much dependent on the mindset and
behavior of the person sitting in the chair. Impersonal interpretation of law
is a utopia. Law schools taught us that the law is universal but in practice it
is based on individual judges' interpretation. Our legal system works on ‘court to
court basis’.
Judicial interpretation has no
fundamental rules (barring few principles of statutory interpretation). It is
largely based on behavioral aspect of the judges. As it is said there is no
absolute philosopher. Every philosopher is the product of his own
circumstances. It is true with the judges too. There is no absolute definition
of judicial behavior except an old English grammar lesson in comparisons, which
says “as sober as a judge”. Every judge is the product of his own learning of
law and the life.
Indian constitutional scheme vests the
judges in higher courts with unfettered discretion. Except self-restraint,
system does not provide many checks to balance the power of judges.
Discretionary remedy to the judges was provided
by the constitutional framers against the violative power of the state to safeguard people. Power either of state or exercised by the judges on behalf of
the state has a natural tendency of encroachment.
‘Self-restraint’ of judges in law courts is a failing idea at best.
“Therefore, I said, the judge should
not be young; he should have learned to know evil, not from his own soul, but
from late and long observation of the nature of evil in others: knowledge should be his guide, not personal
experience.”
-Plato,
The Republic, Book III.
Kartikey
Kartikey


16 comments:
Excellent
Really nice... Tahts what my mother taught me ....she used to say sit in the court I. Your free time and read the Judge.... You will know in na hour how to present your case before him...
Good insight..... Now i know why facts doesn't wkbat times. Hmmm
Good lesson.
Profile is unknown...!
The old saw that laws have flaws emanates from the fundamental fact that laws are after all made by humans and that they are susceptible to distortion or subversion in interpretation if the judge makes them so. That is the reason it takes protracted spell of sustained practice at the bar in getting the grasp of the underlying connotations of jurisprudence so that those who later on sit on the benches to deliver judgment do evince a balance of mind that is free from prejudice or personal fancies. Kudos to Mr. Gupta in highlighting this salient point in the legal profession to make us realize that it is incumbent upon the higher echelons in the pantheon to be free from prejudice or personal biases that might cloud their thinking into delivering not a fair verdict.
Excellent Article Mr Kartikey.
Thanks sir
Thanks Kapil Bhai
This is called experience. Reading somebody’s way of thinking helps to crack most complicated issues in professional as well as personal life.Nice analysis!
very true
As sober as judge , I think this phrase is as utopian as justice everywhere . The concept of saying and seeing 'getting elevation' is not just getting elevated to the bench ,the person need to get elevated in mind also .
Practical approach for better presentation of any case....
Very interesting ..
Absolutely correct
Precise
This is reality. This shows in dissenting judgments.
Prof. Subhash Chandra Gupta
Post a Comment