MUKULIKA S JAWALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'judge' is a generic term. The other terms like umpire, arbiter and arbitrator are only species of judge. A judge determines all matters of disputes and pronounces what is law, now as well as what will be law for the future, and acts under the appointment of the government. Pollock C. B. Ex parte Davis (1857), 5 W. R. 523 said that "judges are philologists of the highest orders". They are not mere administrative officers of the Government but represent the State to administer justice. His functions are to judge a cause and conduct trial according to the legal form and norms and give relief to the party. He does nothing for his own judgment or from a dictate of private will but he will pronounce according to the law and justice. Judex debet judicare secundum allegata et probata, is a maxim which controls the functioning of a judge. The framers of the Constitution of India, to achieve the goal, stated in the preamble of the Constitution of India in regard to justice and equality incorporated in, amongst others, Articles 233 and 235 and vested control in the High Courts over the subordinate Courts. The Supreme Court clearly stated that judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its subordinates unlike bureaucrats or members in other services. Judges were said to be discharging sovereign functions in exercise of their judicial power and power in contra distinction to the public service. In a largest democracy of the world, governed by rule of law under the written constitution, judiciary is the sentinel on the qui vive to protect the fundamental rights and protect the people from any violation of law and grant them justice. The concept of judicial independence, being a wider concept, indicates independent functioning of every judge, free of fear, interference and breaches. Judiciary, was said to be composed of individual persons to work primarily on their own, free of restrictions, but in consonance with law. The Supreme Court in 1997 (6) SCC 339 held as under :

(2.) EMPHASISING importance and responsibility of the trial judge, the Court described that the trial judge is the kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of justice, he directly comes in contact with the litigants during the day to day proceedings and dispensation of justice. Faith in judiciary are the facets of the judicial administration to which they contributed substantially. It is essential to maintain faith of common masses in the judiciary, failing which it would lose its respect and esteem. Law is meant to meet the ends of justice. The supreme Court said that the conduct of every judicial officer should be above reproach. He should be conscientious, studious, thorough and Courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial, sans political or partisan influences; he should administer justice according to law and deal with his appointment as a public trust; he should not allow other affairs or his private interests to interference with the prompt and proper performance of his judicial duties, nor should he administer the office for the purpose of advancing his personal ambitions or increasing his popularity. If he tips the scales of justice, its ripping effect would be disastrous and deleterious.

(3.) IF that be the ethos of the post of District Judge, correspondingly should be the higher parameters for selection to that post. Parameters and criteria should be stringent for selection to that post. Of course, these parameters must be in conformity to the basic rule of law. Greater is the obligation upon the selection authorities to calibrate or drive a balance between the dignity of the post and the standards for selection. Merit and merit alone can be directional in proper selection and would be the hallmark to a just and fair process of selection. Within the scope of Rules and Regulations governing the subject, the selection process needs to be free from any misdemeanour.