Upholding the Dignity of the Bench: Why Judicial Misconduct Cannot Be Ignored
By| Shimaila Jehan Been
In every democracy, the judiciary serves as the guardian of the Constitution and its primary duties include interpreting the law, protecting fundamental rights, and acting as a final arbiter when other branches falter. The Supreme Court has firmly established in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225] that the independence of the judiciary forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure. However, that independence is founded on public trust, which is a fragile foundation. Hence, misconduct, defiance, or contemptuous acts may shake that trust and place the entire justice system at risk.
Recent instances where unruly behaviour has been demonstrated within the court premises and improper conduct has been displayed towards the judges serves as a reminder of the need to preserve judicial dignity. These actions don’t just offend decorum; they also challenge the very authority of the court through which justice is dispensed. The judiciary safeguards liberty, fairness, and accountability so, to respect the bench is not a matter of personal reverence towards individual judges, but a recognition of the institution they embody.
The Constitution of India in Article 129 itself enshrines the protection of this dignity. According to Article 129 the Supreme Court is declared as a “Court of Record,” which is empowered to punish for contempt of itself, while Article 215 of the Constitution grants similar authority to the High Courts. These powers guarantee that the courts can function freely and can command the respect necessary for justice to prevail, but they do not exist to suppress the dissent, which is an essential part of the judiciary. This authority is crucial; as otherwise, judicial pronouncements would risk becoming mere suggestions rather than binding declarations of law.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides a legal framework necessary for enforcing these constitutional provisions. It defines contempt as any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize the authority of the court, or obstructs the administration of justice. More importantly, it draws a fine line between legitimate criticism and conduct that undermines public confidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta [(1971) 1 SCC 626], held that it is the duty of the court to protect itself from scurrilous attacks that could weaken faith in the judiciary.
At the same time, the duty to preserve judicial dignity is not a one-sided obligation as judges themselves are bound by a code of ethics that is articulated in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1999), which identifies integrity, restraint, and impartiality as essential virtues. Advocates are also governed by the Bar Council of India Rules, which require them to maintain respect towards the court and conduct themselves in a manner befitting their role as officers of justice. Therefore, the duty to protect the image of the judiciary extends beyond the bench and belongs equally to the bar and to every citizen who values the rule of law.
True respect for the judiciary has to be nurtured through understanding and civic awareness as it cannot be sustained by fear of punishment alone. The public should be encouraged to engage with judicial processes by analyzing and criticizing them but with reasonable restraint. Acts that undermine this faith may seem momentary, but their damage remains. The judiciary gains its strength from the trust it commands, and protecting that trust is a collective responsibility. Judicial dignity is not an ornament of authority but is the very backbone of constitutional democracy.
About Author: Shimaila Jehan Been is an Advocate with a Master’s in International Relations Peace and conflict studies, can be reached : shumailajehanbeen@gmail.com
