Public confidence in the judiciary finds its foundation in Article 21(1) of the Constitution, which unequivocally designates its role as the sentinel of justice. The Constitution mandates the judiciary to oversee an administration of justice that is not only impartial, but also guided by principles of equity, independence, and timeliness, all within the framework of the rule of law. This dedication to ensuring fairness, unprejudiced proceedings, and efficient resolutions cultivates a sense of trust and reliance among the public. This, in turn, serves to amplify accessibility to justice, making it a reality for all segments of society. However, the recent suspension of two justices, an unprecedented incident, has starkly tested the very principles of impartiality and fairness upon which public trust in the judiciary rests.
Further, the Judicial Service Act of 2007 presents an encompassing code of ethics that judges are mandated to uphold. This comprehensive framework not only calls for an independent and impartial judiciary, but also champions the causes of equitable trials, facilitation of justice access, and the embodiment of judicial dignity. By steadfastly refraining from bias, partisan influences, and public pressures, judges affirm their commitment to safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process and boost public confidence in the institution. Additionally, their conscientious avoidance of public commentary that may sway pending cases underscores a dedication to upholding moral obligations and reinforcing public trust.
Lord Bacon once said, “The place of justice is a hallowed place and therefore not only the Bench, but the foot pace and precincts and thereof ought to be preserved without scandal and corruption. No one would dissent from that proposition – the judiciary, in all its activities, must be free from scandal and corruption. But the problem of public confidence is larger; it mainly involves the lack of a set of standards adequate to enable federal judges to guide their behavior, both on and off the bench.”
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime states that “the judicial misconduct breaks down the very fibre of what is necessary for a functional judiciary- citizens who believe their judges are fair and impartial. The judiciary cannot exist without the trust and confidence of the people. Judges must, therefore, be accountable to legal and ethical standards. UNODC further provides that “judicial misconduct comes in many forms and ethical standards address problematic actions, omissions and relationships that deplete public confidence.” An Indian court stated that “it will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court’s administration of justice.”
In the context of our relatively compact society, instilling public trust in the judiciary encounters distinct challenges. The increasing interference on the open criticism, media freedom, compounded by limited access to judicial decisions, the populace often resorts to unverified speculations, online anonymity, misinformation, and fake news as primary sources of information. Consequently, it is imperative for our judiciary to proactively establish channels that provide transparent public access to judicial verdicts. The empowerment of the public to scrutinize, comprehend, and evaluate judicial decisions not only bolsters transparency but also solidifies the foundation of public confidence. Failing this, even isolated incidents can amplify negative impacts, causing reputational harm to the judiciary as a whole.
Sonam Tshering
Lawyer, Thimphu
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own.