Let Judgments Speak: Justice Narasimha Advocates for Judicial Silence in the Social Media Age

In an era defined by constant communication and the pervasive influence of social media, a sitting Supreme Court judge has issued a powerful call for judicial restraint, arguing that a judge's most profound contribution is a well-reasoned judgment, after which they should "disappear" from the public eye.

Speaking at a felicitation ceremony for Justice A.S. Chandurkar in Nagpur, Justice P.S. Narasimha of the Supreme Court of India voiced significant concern over what he described as a growing tendency for judges to seek public attention, both during their tenure and, more critically, after retirement. He contended that the very essence of justice dispensation requires the judge to recede into the background, allowing their written decisions to be the sole voice of their judicial function.

"Justice dispensation requires the disappearance of a judge," Justice Narasimha stated emphatically. "A judge should not be seen; he has no business to be there except that he decides. His personality as an individual of having written better judgments is unnecessary. A judge does nothing more than decide and he disappears."

The Perils of the Digital Pulpit

Justice Narasimha's remarks come at a time when the line between private opinion and public duty is increasingly blurred by digital platforms. He cautioned that the allure of media attention could prove tempting for sitting judges, but reserved his strongest critique for the post-retirement trend of judges becoming public commentators.

"We seem to have moved away in the age of social media from the requirement of speaking less," he observed. "Every word gets reported in the news. And sitting judges might get attracted. And worst is, post retirement, judges think the time has come for me to talk. That's not the way the system should work. The system should work through measured speech."

This caution strikes at the heart of a burgeoning debate within the legal fraternity. In recent years, several retired judges, including former Chief Justices of India, have actively participated in public discourse, offering opinions on political developments, legislative actions, and even subsequent court rulings. While some view this as a valuable contribution of experienced legal minds to the national conversation, others, aligning with Justice Narasimha, see it as a potential erosion of the neutrality and mystique that underpins judicial authority. The concern is that a judge's post-retirement commentary could be perceived as an extension of their judicial philosophy, potentially casting a retroactive political or ideological shadow on their past judgments.

Brevity as a Judicial Virtue

Extending his philosophy of restraint from speech to the written word, Justice Narasimha championed the virtue of brevity for both lawyers and judges. Citing the ancient wisdom of the poet Kalidasa— “satyayaya mithabhashinam” (to achieve truth, one must speak less)—he argued that precision and conciseness are paramount in the pursuit of justice.

“If truth is to be found, the principle is you must speak less," he asserted. "The compelling need of a judge is to speak very little and write as little as possible to convey the truth. This is a sadhana [a disciplined practice] we must undertake.”

He urged members of the Bar to adopt a similar discipline, advising them to collaboratively identify the most crucial arguable points and confine their arguments to them. This, he suggested, would not only aid judicial efficiency but also prevent the truth from becoming a "casualty" in the performative aspects of legal practice, where professionals often vie for the "centre stage."

In his praise for Justice Chandurkar, Justice Narasimha highlighted his measured speech as a source of immense power. “He will speak only if necessary... Power is in his control over speech. It is not an easy thing. That way you are powerful- you know what you are saying, you have control of what you are saying.”

A Contrasting Vision: The Judge as a Proponent of Justice

While Justice Narasimha's vision is one of judicial minimalism and disappearance, it exists within a broader spectrum of judicial philosophies. A different, yet not necessarily contradictory, perspective on the judge's role was recently articulated by his Supreme Court colleague, Justice Surya Kant.

Speaking at the 2nd National Mediation Conference, Justice Kant presented a vision of the judge as an active facilitator of holistic justice. He emphasized that the judiciary's role extends beyond delivering verdicts to fostering enduring solutions. Highlighting the transformative power of mediation, he shared a powerful metaphor: “That is the mathematics of mediation—it subtracts bitterness, divides burdens, and adds hope to the broken equations of human relationships.”

Justice Kant's address, which celebrated the Supreme Court's "Mediation for the Nation" campaign and the statutory backing of the Mediation Act, 2023, showcases a judicial figure actively and publicly championing a specific pathway to justice. His invocation of the Rigveda— “Move together, speak together, let your minds be in harmony” —presents an image of the judiciary as a unifier and a guide, actively shaping the future of dispute resolution.

Reconciling Silence and Speech

The juxtaposition of Justice Narasimha's call for silence and Justice Kant's advocacy for mediation raises a pivotal question for the modern judiciary: What is the appropriate public voice for a judge?

The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. One can argue that Justice Kant's advocacy is confined to the "how" of justice delivery—promoting an officially sanctioned and statutorily supported mechanism—while Justice Narasimha's concerns are directed at the "what," cautioning judges against commenting on substantive political or social issues, especially those that may have appeared before them or could in the future.

Justice Narasimha's core principle is that a judge's authority is derived from the institution, not their individual personality. The judgment is the final, institutional product, and any subsequent personal commentary risks undermining its objective force. In his view, the moment a judge steps into the arena of public opinion, they cease to be an impartial arbiter and become just another voice in the crowd, potentially diminishing the sanctity of the office they once held.

His speech serves as a crucial reminder to the legal community that in the quest for justice, the loudest voice is not always the most effective. True power, he suggests, lies not in public visibility or prolific commentary, but in the quiet, disciplined, and profound act of adjudication, culminating in a judgment that speaks for itself—clearly, authoritatively, and enduringly.