Days after an Allahabad High Court judge sought an explanation from Railways authorities for ‘not meeting his requirements’ during a train journey, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Wednesday expressed disappointment over the incident, underscoring the need for “self-reflection and counselling within the judiciary”, reported Bar and Bench.
In a communication addressed to Chief Justices of all the High Courts, CJI Chandrachud expressed displeasure over the letter, that was widely shared on social media.
On July 8, Justice Gautam Chowdhary who was travelling from New Delhi to Prayagraj with his spouse in the First Class AC coach, complained that the Purushotam Express was late by more than three hours.
Upon receiving the directions of the High Court judge, on July 14, the registrar of the High Court wrote to the general manager, North Central Railways, Prayagraj, demanding an explanation from the officials concerned.
The judge also complained that no GRP personnel were found in the coach to meet the requirements “as desired by his Lordship”.
Moreover, no pantry car workers attended to the judge for providing refreshments and a call to the pantry car manager went unanswered, he complained.
Disapproving of the directions issued at the behest of the High Court judge, the CJI stated that it has caused “justifiable disquiet both within and outside the judiciary”.
“Protocol ‘facilities’ which are made available to judges should not be utilized to assert a claim to privilege which sets them apart from society or as a manifestation of power or authority. A wise exercise of judicial authority, both on and off the bench, is what sustains the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary and the confidence which society has in its judges,” the CJI stated in his letter.
The CJI’s letter also questioned the authority of the high court judge to seek an explanation from railways since a high court judge does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnel.
“There was no occasion for an officer of the high court to call for an explanation from the railway personnel ‘to be placed before His Lordship for kind perusal’.”
Evidently, the officer of the high court in the communication made to the North Central Railways was carrying out a direction of the judge of the high court in this instance, the letter of the CJI reads.
The CJI has requested chief justices of high courts to share his concerns with all colleagues across the high courts, adding that “self-reflection and counselling within the judiciary is necessary”.
“Protocol facilities which are made available to judges should not be used in a manner that is liable to result in inconvenience to others or to bring public criticism of the judiciary,” the CJI’s communication said.