We live in the age of information revolution. Any information we want is at fingertip distance around the clock and in any corner of the world. This revolution affects judges in higher judiciary of India so often that its is almost frightening. A justice making his opinion and quoting a line from NDTV or Hindustan Times website on recent news is not unusual.
It will be crazy to think or suggest that we all can surf the web except the judges. Historically, we confined judges to the record from trial courts so that what is on paper does not evaporate or does not fade like lines in sand.
Judges have been affected by web and its effect on judges will stay. Judges are only human. Robert Penn Warren writes in his books “All the King’s Men” about the use and misuse of information.
A judge would want to know more than what two parties told him. Here a line must be drawn. This line is the difference and distance between fact and attitude.
Attitude has a limit and it cannot be applied freely with facts. Nobody questions how enormous is the power of a judge that creates inroads in the lives of a nation, city, tribe and individual citizen.
All we can do is pray that they, the judges have the wisdom and most importantly the humility to know the difference.
A classic case is a 2011 US Supreme Court case of “Brown v. Entertainment Merchant Association”. The court decided in a vote of 7 to 2 divide that California law violated US Constitutional First Amendment for sale of violent video games to minors. Justice Kagan explained later at a Harvard Seminar, where she was a Dean before being appointed the justice, that she and Justice Breyer knew nothing about video games, so they decided to play one. Judge Kagan did not mention a game by name. But it was played in justice’s chambers.
“Justice Breyer thought it was really horrible, really disgusting and repellant, and I was like next round, next round”.
Eventually Justice Kagan decided to vote with majority to strike down Prohibition and Justice Breyer made a choice of dissent.
Incidents like above seem harmless on surface but are seriously problematic.
How a judge reacts to a situation depends so much on his background that generates his attitude. A young criminal prosecutor will always have a fine eye to see what can go wrong, which may not be the case for other advocate. And the young age experience turns into attitude in later part of life and decide whether to set a conviction aside or go to other side.
Post Star needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise.