Judges shouldn't use protocol 'facilities' to assert claim to privileges, CJI tells HC Chief Justices

New Delhi: Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has written to all Chief Justices of High Courts, saying that 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.

His advice came right after the Allahabad High Court Judge Gautam Chowdhary hauled up railway officials for the "displeasure" caused to the judge during his train journey, along with his spouse, from New Delhi to Prayagraj.

In a letter dated July 14, from the Registrar (Protocol) of the Allahabad HC to the General Manager of the North Central Railway, Prayagraj, it is alleged that the judge faced inconvenience during the train journey on July 8.

The letter the CJI had referred to reads: "The train was late by more than three hours. Inspite of repeated intimation to the T.T.E, no G.R.P personnel were found in the coach to meet the requirements as desired by His Lordship. Further, no Pantry Car workers attended His Lordship for providing refreshments despite repeated calls. Moreover, when the call was made to the Pantry Car Manager Mr. Raj Tripathi, the call was not picked up."

Saying that the aforesaid incident caused great inconvenience and displeasure to the judge, the letter said that the Judge had desired "that explanation may be called from the erring officials of the Railways, the G.R.P Personnel and the Pantry Car Manager pertaining to the inconvenience caused to His Lordship due to their conduct and dereliction of duty".

In his missive to all the Chief Justices of the High Courts, the CJI has said that self-reflection and counselling within the judiciary is necessary. "

"In order to prevent further embarrassment to the High Court, I have redacted identities from the extract of the above communication," the CJI wrote.

He further said that a Judge of the high court does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnel, and hence, 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 above communication was carrying out a direction of the Judge of the High Court in this instance ('the Hon'ble Judge has desired')," he wrote.

The CJI has said that the communication which has been addressed by an officer of the High Court to the General Manager of the Railway establishment, has given rise to "justifiable disquiet both within and outside the judiciary".

"Protocol 'facilities' which are made available to Judges should not be utilised to assert a claim to privilege which sets them apart from society or as a manifestation of power or authorit," the CJI said.

He said that 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.