This week we witnessed a momentous turning point in our judicial history. Our Supreme Court building more than 2 centuries old, no longer able to bear the physical demands of the profession and the users of the judicial system, discreetly made way for a brand-new Supreme Court building, at a new location.
To mark the occasion, the Chief Justice convened a first symbolic sitting (“audience d‘entrée”) at the new Supreme Court. The Solicitor General in his address appreciatively remarked on the impressive glass cladding of the modern building and expressed the wish that the Judges housed within it would be inspired by this architectural feature to shed more light on their functions as administrators of justice. In the same breath, he hoped that Judges would step outside their proverbial ivory towers and come closer to the realities of the daily life of the common man, to whom their office required them to dispense judicial relief.
These bold remarks, made within the very sanctum of Justice, in the presence of all the sitting judges of the Supreme Court, cannot be taken lightly. They begged the question as to how the common man – consumer of the judicial system- saw those, in whose hands their fate was entrusted.
First the imagery of light. The fundamental precepts of natural justice dictate that (i) the fair dispensation of justice is an overt act which entails not only decision making, but also the appreciation of the fairness with which it is achieved – whence the celebrated term that Justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done, (ii) all parties involved in a dispute have a right to be heard, to be represented and to be given all latitude to put forward their case, and (iii) the persons responsible for the adjudication of a dispute should be totally impartial, without bias and objective in their actions and attitude towards the parties.
In all the above propositions, the main negating element is opacity. Indeed, who would trust a system in which a decision was reached in obscure circumstances, where an aggrieved party was ousted of a case without his story being heard, or where the scales were clearly tilted in favour of one of the parties? Whilst it is a given that such a system could not exist in any society proclaiming allegiance to the respect of entrenched constitutional rights within a democracy, it is also true that constant reminders of these alarm bells are never superfluous.
Secondly, opacity can also take the form of ignorance. The lay person who is faced with a legal problem may not always understand the situation he finds himself in and will typically remit himself to his legal advisers for explanations. Whilst he may eventually appreciate his own legal circumstances, it cannot be assumed that he will readily accept that his opponent has his own set of circumstances, which may be equally plausible. Finally, it will be up to a total stranger to decide on which version is legally acceptable. The success of the outcome will largely depend on the manner, in which the process was conducted. If a litigant has understood what happened in Court first-hand, he is more likely to accept an adverse verdict. If he has followed the proceedings, he will be more inclined to accept shortcomings in his case. But, if the whole process was nothing short of an incomprehensible sequence of pompous exchanges – there is little chance that the purpose of seeking and obtaining legal relief, would have been achieved. In this sense, Judges are beacons of light who, being mindful of the fact that the Court process is first and foremost about the litigant and matters directly affecting his personal circumstances, would ensure that the proceedings should be inclusive of the parties involved.
Finally, judges are often taxed with being wilfully withdrawn in their ivory towers. This is not to be taken as a criticism on a number of counts as one of the hallmarks of independence of mind must be a lack of involvement in contentious aspects of daily life. The flipside of the argument will however yield the contrary result. Judges who are too uninvolved with the realities of daily life, develop aloofness from human misery and may end up lacking requisite empathy for dispensing justice.
Coming back to the symbolic glass cladding of our new Supreme Court building, and with the words of the Solicitor General still ringing in our ears, we can only rejoice that our Judges are open to being reminded of the constant challenge of living up to the very high hopes and expectations placed on them by one and all.
After all, isn’t it well said that “Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom”?
