Judicial Discipline: Sometimes, the most difficult thing for a Judge is to simply follow the Law
We often speak about judicial independence, and rightly so. A judge must be free to decide a case without external pressure or influence. But equally important is Judicial Discipline, particularly the discipline to follow binding precedents and settled principles of law.
Judging is, by its nature, an intellectual exercise. Judges have to interpret and apply the law to different factual situations and there will always be occasions when the law genuinely needs to evolve. But there is a difference between developing the law where necessary and revisiting a settled position simply because another interpretation appears possible.
When settled law is repeatedly questioned or interpreted differently, the immediate result is uncertainty. That uncertainty leads to more litigation, appeals and conflicting decisions. An issue that was thought to have been settled begins generating another layer of litigation. This is particularly visible in areas such as cheque dishonour cases, amendment of pleadings, rejection of plaints, quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings, and maintenance matters, where courts continue to deal with substantially similar questions despite considerable judicial guidance.
Of course, every case has different facts, and settled principles must necessarily be applied to those facts. But applying settled law is very different from reopening the law itself every time the issue arises. A judge may genuinely disagree with an earlier judgment or believe that the law should develop differently. That is part of the judicial process. But where a precedent is binding, personal disagreement cannot ordinarily justify disregarding it.
There is an uncomfortable irony for the legal profession. Uncertainty creates litigation, and litigation creates work. More interpretations mean more arguments and conflicting approaches mean more appeals. But the justice system cannot be judged by the amount of work it generates for lawyers. Its real purpose is to provide justice, certainty and predictability to citizens.
I came across an interesting example while teaching US Business Law. Delaware’s predictable corporate law gives businesses and investors’ confidence and is one reason companies continue to incorporate there. The lesson is simple: businesses do not necessarily need more law but what they really need is certainty about the law. The same should apply to our justice system too. When a legal position is settled, repeatedly reopening it may create more litigation without necessarily creating better law. Consistent application of settled principles can instead reduce avoidable litigation and strengthen confidence in the legal system and in turn attract more business and investment.
Our judicial system often functions as a form of controlled chaos. Cases are filed, heard, decided and appealed, and higher courts correct errors along the way. But controlled chaos is still chaos. If the same legal questions continue to consume enormous judicial time, perhaps there is a case for greater institutional dialogue among judges on recurring issues, not to dictate outcomes, but to identify areas where settled principles are being applied inconsistently and to reduce avoidable litigation.
There are instances where disagreements between judges or conflicting interpretations have resulted in the law being revisited. The Supreme Court has, in appropriate cases, settled contentious issues comprehensively- for example, in In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, etc. A similar institutional approach to recurring areas of uncertainty could potentially prevent thousands of unnecessary cases.
Judicial discipline should not be mistaken for judicial weakness. It takes considerable discipline to follow a binding precedent with which one may personally disagree. Judicial restraint is not the absence of judicial thinking. It is knowing when fresh thinking is necessary and when it is not. The law must evolve when circumstances demand it. Judges must have the courage to question established positions when reconsideration is genuinely warranted. But there must also be the humility to recognise when a question has already been answered.
Perhaps judicial excellence should therefore be measured not only by the ability to develop the law, but also by the ability to recognise when the law is already settled and simply apply it consistently. Judicial independence gives a judge the freedom to decide. Judicial discipline reminds the judge that the decision does not exist in isolation.
Sometimes, the most difficult and perhaps the most valuable judicial decision is to understand that- “The law is settled. Let us follow it.”
By
Bhargav G
Partner – Indite Law
