Advocates of Shivamogga write to CJI and HC Chief Justice opposing HC judge’s participation in programme to be presided over by former minister

The recent objection raised by advocates in Shivamogga, Karnataka, against High Court judge Justice V. Shrishananda's participation in a program to be presided over by former minister K.S. Eshwarappa, brings to the forefront critical aspects of judicial ethics, independence, and the public's trust in the judiciary. This incident, while seemingly minor, encapsulates profound principles vital for the functioning of a democratic state and serves as an excellent case study for competitive exam aspirants.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

India's constitutional framework places the judiciary as a vigilant guardian of the Constitution and the rights of citizens. To fulfill this role effectively, judicial independence and impartiality are paramount. This means judges must not only be impartial in their rulings but also *appear* to be impartial to the public. Any action or association that could create a perception of bias, political alignment, or undue influence is generally frowned upon and can erode public confidence in the institution.

The specific incident involves Karnataka High Court judge Justice V. Shrishananda being invited to deliver a lecture at an event in Shivamogga on December 25. The core of the controversy lies in the fact that this program is scheduled to be presided over by K.S. Eshwarappa, a prominent political figure and former minister. Advocates from Shivamogga, perceiving this association as potentially compromising the judge's impartiality or the judiciary's perceived neutrality, lodged a formal objection by writing to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Justice V. Shrishananda:** As the High Court judge invited to the event, his conduct and associations are under scrutiny. The judiciary has a self-regulatory mechanism to ensure judges uphold the highest ethical standards. While participating in public events for educational or social causes is not inherently wrong, the context (a political figure presiding) raises questions.

2. **K.S. Eshwarappa:** A former minister, his political background is central to the advocates' objection. His presence as the presiding figure at the event creates the perception of a link between the judiciary and a political personality, which is generally to be avoided to maintain the judiciary's apolitical image.

3. **Shivamogga Advocates:** This group represents a segment of the legal fraternity actively safeguarding judicial ethics and the rule of law. Their proactive step of writing to higher judicial authorities demonstrates their commitment to preserving the integrity of the judicial system.

4. **Chief Justice of India (CJI) and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice:** These are the ultimate authorities responsible for the administration of justice and upholding judicial standards. They are the recipients of the complaint and are expected to review the matter, potentially offer guidance, or take appropriate action to reinforce judicial propriety.

**Why This Matters for India and Historical Context:**

This incident is significant because it touches upon the bedrock principles of judicial independence and accountability, which are crucial for India's democratic health. The perception of justice is almost as important as justice itself. If the public believes judges are influenced by political figures or affiliations, their trust in the judicial system can diminish, leading to a weakening of the rule of law.

Historically, debates around judicial conduct and accountability have been recurrent in India. The 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life' adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997 serves as a crucial ethical guide for judges, emphasizing that a judge should not have close association with any member of the Bar or with members of the public, which may give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the judge's impartiality or integrity is compromised. It also states that a judge should not enter into public debate or express views on political matters. While not legally binding, it is a powerful moral and ethical code.

**Constitutional Provisions and Future Implications:**

Several constitutional articles underpin the principles at stake. **Article 50** of the Constitution mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, a foundational principle to ensure judicial independence. While this incident doesn't directly involve the executive, the spirit of this article extends to maintaining a clear distinction between the judiciary and political branches generally. The **High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954**, and the **Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968**, lay down the framework for judges' service conditions and removal, respectively, highlighting the special status and responsibilities of judicial office. Furthermore, the broader concept of judicial accountability, though not codified in a single comprehensive law, is an ongoing concern, with past attempts like the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill aiming to provide a more robust framework.

In terms of future implications, this incident could lead to the Chief Justice of the High Court or the CJI issuing advisories to judges regarding participation in public events, especially those involving political personalities. It reinforces the need for judges to exercise extreme caution and discretion to avoid even the *appearance* of impropriety. Such incidents serve as a reminder for the judiciary to continually reflect on and reinforce its ethical guidelines, ensuring that public trust, the ultimate currency of the judicial system, remains unblemished. It also highlights the active role of the legal community in upholding these standards, acting as an internal check within the system.

**Broader Themes:** This issue connects to broader themes of good governance, the rule of law, checks and balances within a democracy, and the critical role of an independent and impartial judiciary in protecting fundamental rights and upholding constitutional values. It underscores that judicial ethics are not merely academic concepts but practical necessities for a functioning democracy.