SC Justice Narasimha Urges Judicial Restraint, Warns Against Post-Retirement Commentary in Social Media Era

NAGPUR — In a powerful address on judicial conduct, Supreme Court Justice PS Narasimha has issued a compelling call for judges to exercise profound restraint in their speech, asserting that judgments, not personal opinions, should be the sole voice of the judiciary. Speaking at a felicitation ceremony, he cautioned against the temptations of public commentary, particularly in the pervasive age of social media and after retirement, advocating for an ideal where the judge as an individual "disappears" behind their judicial pronouncements.

The remarks were delivered during an event organized by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court Bar Association to honor Justice AS Chandurkar. Justice Narasimha’s speech delved into the fundamental principles of judicial ethics, contrasting the roles of lawyers and judges and reflecting on the discipline required to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

---

The Perils of the Social Media Age

At the heart of Justice Narasimha's address was a stark warning about the modern pressures facing the judiciary. He observed a departure from the traditional norm of judicial reticence, driven by the constant demand for content and the instantaneous nature of social media.

“We seem to have moved away (from restraint in speech) with social media and requirement to speak so much,” Justice Narasimha stated. “Every word gets reported in the news, and sitting judges might get attracted. And worse is post retirement, judges think that ‘time has come when I have to talk now’, as if it is a full time talk. I think that’s not the way the system should work.”

This pointed critique addresses a growing trend where judges, both sitting and retired, engage in public discourse beyond their written orders. Justice Narasimha argued that this "overexposure" risks diminishing the authority of the judiciary, which should be rooted in the reasoned, impartial application of law as expressed in judgments, rather than the personal charisma or opinions of individual judges.

The Ideal of the 'Disappearing Judge'

To illustrate his point, Justice Narasimha articulated a profound philosophy of judicial service: the concept of the "disappearing judge." He stressed that the administration of justice is an impersonal process focused on law and fact, not the personality of the adjudicator.

“I believe that justice dispensation requires disappearance of a judge. Judge should not be seen, judge has no business to be there in the process, except that he decides,” he explained. “His personality as an individual … all this is unnecessary. Judge does nothing more than he decides, and he disappears.”

He lauded the honoree, Justice AS Chandurkar, as the embodiment of this principle. “He (Justice Chandurkar) is a judge who has disappeared, but his decisions only speak and they speak volumes.” This praise highlighted a career defined by the substance of judicial work rather than public persona, presenting it as a model for the entire judiciary.

---

Speech, Truth, and the Role of Restraint

Justice Narasimha framed his argument within the broader context of the legal profession's relationship with speech and truth. He acknowledged that while speech is the essential tool of an advocate, its function fundamentally changes upon ascending to the Bench.

“The decipherment of truth is the purpose and object of the judiciary, and the means of finding that truth is through dialogue, through argument before the court,” he noted. For a lawyer, advocacy is the medium. For a judge, the ultimate expression of this pursuit of truth lies not in oration but in the carefully crafted written judgment.

This distinction calls for a unique discipline of restraint from both sides of the bench. Lawyers must exercise brevity to present their arguments concisely, and judges must practice precision to deliver clear and impactful judgments.

“The compelling need of a judge is to speak less – which doesn’t really happen anyway – and to write little, to write precise and to write as small as possible and to convey the truth," Justice Narasimha observed. He described this practice as a "sadhana," or a dedicated spiritual exercise, underscoring the deep commitment required to master it. He recalled an arbitration case where Justice Chandurkar delivered a "beautifully crafted, so precise" judgment, focusing only on the relevant facts, as a testament to this cultivated quality.

---

Justice Chandurkar on Professional Conduct and Legacy

In his response, Justice Chandurkar offered his own reflections on his journey from the Bar to the Bench, emphasizing humility, continuous learning, and the enduring connection to his "parent Bar."

"The ties with the parent Bar are never severed," he said. "In fact, one is always recognised as a product of the parent Bar and that identity is never wiped out."

He shared memories of his 25 years as a lawyer, noting how the daily disciplines of court life—arriving early, waiting for matters to be called, and learning from both seniors and mistakes—instilled the patience and perspective necessary for his judicial role.

Addressing the younger members of the Bar, Justice Chandurkar delivered a poignant message about the true measure of a legal professional. He advised them to look beyond immediate outcomes and focus on the integrity of their conduct.

“At the end of the day, you are not judged by the number of cases you have won or lost,” he concluded. “You are judged by the manner in which you have conducted yourself in the process. Your overall conduct carries far more weight than the statistics of success or failure, which are merely incidental.”

Justice Chandurkar also highlighted the significant legacy of the Nagpur Bar, noting that it has produced three sitting Supreme Court judges, including himself, Justice Narasimha, and Chief Justice BR Gavai. He encouraged young lawyers to draw inspiration from this, stating, "Nagpur holds as much promise for the Bar as do Mumbai and Delhi."

The event thus served as a dual platform: a celebration of a distinguished judicial career and a profound discourse on the core ethics and enduring principles that must guide the legal profession in an increasingly complex and noisy world.