Is blogging, tweeting dignified for judges?

Supreme Court collegium examines if doing so defies the code of conduct for judiciary

Rakesh Bhatnagar NEW DELHI

Judges are famously taciturn. Which is precisely why one clearly remembers when high court (HC) judges — Karnataka judge DV Shylendra Kumar, and Punjab and Haryana judge K Kannan — blogged their views on the judicial disclosure of assets issue. But now, the Supreme Court (SC) collegium is examining whether blogging and tweeting by superior court judges defies the 'reinstatement of values of judicial life'. The 'reinstatement of values' is a document that a majority of SC and HC judges adopted in 1997. In the absence of law governing the conduct of superior court judges, this self-regulated code is expected to be respected. A question was raised in Parliament in August on whether the government was aware that some HC judges blog their views, and whether this was against the code of conduct. And if so, whether preventive measures were being taken to check the "trend". The law ministry despatched the query to the SC. Registrar (administration) Ashok Kumar informed the government that the issue relating to blogging by judges was being examined by the collegium in light of the 1997 document. The collegium, headed by the transparency-loving chief justice of India (CJI), SH Kapadia, will take a call on whether blogging by judges on matters may or may not affect pending cases. The agenda before the collegium comes at a time when the CJI is vigorously stressing on strengthening the justice system with e-technology. However, not all 16 values enumerated in the code of conduct would be relevant for judging whether blogging is an anathema to the justice delivery system. The code, which is "illustrative" and not "exhaustive", at the outset asserts: "Justice must not merely be done, but must also be seen to be done. The behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reaffirm the people's faith in the impartiality of the judiciary. "Any act of a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court, whether in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of this perception, has to be avoided." It says a judge should practice "a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office". Also, a judge shall not enter into public debate or "express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination". The last relevant code is that every judge must "at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held".