‘Protocol Facilities’ for Judges Should Not Be Seen as ‘Manifestation of Power’, CJI Says

In a letter to the chief justice of all high courts, CJI Chandrachud expressed displeasure about an Allahabad high court judge seeking an explanation from the railways for his poor travel experience.

New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud on Wednesday, July 19, said that judges should not use ‘protocol facilities’ that they get due to their position, criticising an Allahabad high court judge for seeking an “explanation” from railway authorities for “not meeting his requirements during a train journey”.

The registrar of the Allahabad high court had written to the railway authorities on July 14 about the train journey of Justice Gautam Chowdhary on July 8, during which the judge apparently faced some inconvenience. The letter said that Justice Chowdhary sought an explanation from the general manager of the North Central Railway, Prayagraj, for his poor experience on the first-class AC coach of the Purushotam Express from New Delhi to Prayagraj.

The train was late by more than 3 hours and there were no government railway police (GRP) officers in the coach to meet the judge’s requirements despite “repeated intimation”. Pantry car workers also did not attend to the judge to provide refreshments and the pantry car manager did not answer calls, the letter said.

The letter, which was shared widely on social media, raised concerns among the public about the sense of entitlement among members of the judiciary.

On Wednesday, CJI Chandrachud wrote to the chief justices of all the high courts and expressed displeasure over the incident. According to Bar and Bench, he said that the letter has given rise to “justifiable” criticism of the judiciary. Judges must ensure that the “protocol facilities” that they get due to their position must not be seen as a “manifestation of power and authority”, he wrote.

“This communication has given rise to justifiable disquiet both within and outside the Judiciary. Protocol ‘facilities’ which are made available to Judges should not be utilised to assert a claim to privilege which sets them apart from society or as a manifestation of power or authority,” the letter said.

He asked judges to exercise judicial authority wisely, both on and off the bench because it “sustains the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary and the confidence which society has in judges”. CJI Chandrachud said there should be self-reflection and counselling within the judiciary.

“Protocol facilities which are made available to judges should not be used in a manner that is liable to result in inconvenience to others or to bring public criticism of the judiciary,” his letter said, according to Bar and Bench.

On the letter sent by the Allahabad high court, the CJI noted that judges do not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnel.

“Hence there was no occasion for an officer of the (Allahabad) High Court to call for an explanation from the railway personnel ‘to be placed before his lordship for his kind perusal.’ Evidently, the officer of the High Court was carrying out a direction of the Judge of the High Court in this instance,” the CJI’s letter said.