In a compelling and urgent plea to the Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Senior Advocate, Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Member of the Parliament, Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, has raised serious concerns regarding the treatment of advocates by the judiciary, calling for immediate judicial reforms. His letter, dated October 7, 2024, sheds light on the recent disheartening incident in various courtrooms across India, which display the troubling behaviour of some judges towards advocates.

At the heart of his letter is an alarming incident involving Hon'ble Justice R. Subramanian of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. During virtual proceedings, the judge allegedly reprimanded Senior Advocate P. Wilson and other advocates present in the court with inappropriate language. The advocates were attempting to highlight a potential conflict of interest, not with the intent of suggesting recusal, but to ensure transparency in judicial proceedings. Despite repeated clarifications and a courteous apology by the Senior Advocate, Justice Subramanian continued to berate the legal professionals involved. What followed was even more concerning—erroneous remarks were recorded in the court's order, accusing Mr. Wilson of making irresponsible comments that were never made. This distortion of facts, as evident from the widely circulated video of the proceedings, is a chilling reminder of how courtroom dynamics can sometimes stray from fairness.

Mr. Mishra notes the breach of confidentiality in the judiciary, highlighting the unauthorised dissemination of the court proceedings despite the Madras High Court's Video Conferencing Rules. This incident not only raises questions about courtroom conduct but also about the integrity of the judicial process itself. The fact that such video footage was leaked without consequences casts serious doubts on the efficacy of current safeguards, which are supposed to protect the sanctity of the courtroom.

In his letter, Mr. Mishra poignantly observes that "the courtroom is a place where advocates are expected to present their cases freely and without fear of intimidation." Advocates are not mere functionaries of the court; they are officers of the law tasked with safeguarding justice. The treatment of Senior Advocate P. Wilson by the Bench, a man of immense legal acumen and stature, speaks to a much larger issue—how the judiciary interacts with its advocates. Mr. Mishra warns that if such treatment can be meted out to senior members of the Bar, it raises concerns about the experiences of younger, less-established advocates.

The foundation of the Bar-Bench relationship is mutual respect, a principle which, if eroded, can threaten the very framework of justice. A system where advocates operate under fear of public rebuke, humiliation, or intimidation cannot foster justice.

Mr. Mishra draws attention to fundamental human rights principles, arguing that disrespect towards advocates violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 1 of the UDHR emphasises the right to dignity, a right that applies equally to legal professionals. Mr. Mishra correctly asserts that when judges mistreat advocates, it is not only a breach of professional decorum but also an infringement on their human rights. Such behaviour diminishes the role of advocates as equals in the administration of justice and erodes public confidence in the legal system.

This concern extends beyond mere courtroom etiquette; it speaks to the judiciary's fundamental role in upholding the rule of law. When advocates are silenced or humiliated for raising legitimate concerns, the very foundation of justice is shaken.

In addressing these concerns, Mr. Mishra proposed significant reforms, starting with the need for a stricter and more enforceable code of conduct for judges. This code, Mr. Mishra suggests, should include clear guidelines on courtroom behaviour and consequences for judges who deviate from these standards. While judges should have the discretion to control court proceedings, this power must not extend to making personal or irrelevant remarks that border on intimidation.

Additionally, Mr. Mishra advocates for psychological training and regular mental health evaluations of judges, acknowledging the immense pressure and stress they face in their roles. By focusing on the mental well-being of judges, Mr. Mishra argues that the judiciary can ensure that they remain impartial, respectful, and fair in their conduct. A dedicated committee, ideally composed of retired judges, could oversee these evaluations, offering support, training, or counseling as needed.

Mr. Mishra’s call to the Chief Justice is not just about addressing individual incidents of judicial misconduct, but about preserving the integrity of India’s legal system as a whole. When judges mistreat advocates, it weakens the public's trust in the judiciary. In a democracy, this trust is paramount. Without it, the judiciary loses its credibility and, by extension, its ability to administer justice impartially.

In the closing lines of his letter, Mr. Mishra offers a powerful reminder: "The Bar and the Bench must work in harmony, built on a foundation of mutual respect and dignity to ensure that justice is administered fairly and impartially." This sentiment encapsulates the spirit of his plea for judicial reforms—reforms aimed at fostering an environment where advocates can perform their duties without fear, and where judges are held to the highest standards of conduct.