The Supreme Court (SC) in a full verdict has dissolved a long-pending issue by giving judges six months to put their signature on the copies of a verdict from the date of its delivery in the open court. Besides this, the apex court has also issued 40 directives for judges, describing how they should maintain the court’s code of conduct. In its directive, the apex court said that a judge would have to sign the verdict on all cases within six months of its delivery unless a case is exceptional.
Amidst the raging debate about judges signing judgments after their retirement, the top court’s observation has come in the full verdict that upholds a presidential decision in 2004 to remove the High Court’s (HC's) additional judge Syed Shahidur Rahman.
A four-member Appellate Division bench, led by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, delivered the verdict on September 16, 2015 while also scrapping a 2005 HC order that termed the presidential move illegal.
The 103-page full verdict of Shahidur Rahman’s case was published on the SC’s website yesterday.
The verdict said that a judge should promptly dispose of the business of the court and avoid inordinate delay in delivering judgments/orders. In no case shall a judgment be signed later than six months of the date of delivery of judgment, unless the case is exceptional.
In the full verdict, the apex court observed that a judge should respect and comply with the Constitution and law, and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary.
The verdict also says that a judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Moreover, a judge should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamour, or fear of criticism.
According to the verdict: “A Judge should avoid public comment on the merit of a pending or impending Court case. A Judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
It also says: “A Judge shall be disqualified to hear a matter/cause where he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the Judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the Judge or such lawyer has been a material witness. A Judge must not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination before him.”
The verdict copy said, a judge should not engage directly or indirectly in trade or business, either by himself or in association with any other person.
The verdict copy says that a judge should not engage in any political activities whatsoever, whether in the country and abroad.
A judge shall disclose his assets and liabilities, if asked to do so by the Chief Justice, it adds.
The verdict says that ajJudge should not permit any member of his immediate family, such as spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or any other close relative, if a member of the Bar, to appear before him or even be associated in any manner with a cause to be dealt with by him.
A judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination. A judge is expected to let his judgments speak for themselves. He shall not give interviews to the media, it says.
According to the verdict, a judge shall not allow the use of his or her residence by a member of the legal profession to receive clients or other members of the legal profession. A judge shall not allow his or her familial, social, or other relationships to improperly influence his or her judicial conduct and judgment as a Judge. A judge shall not practice law while holding judicial office.
A judge shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified, and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge shall require similar conduct from legal representatives, court staff, and others subject who are under the judge’s influence, direction, or control. A judge shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties, according to the verdict. Syed Shahidur Rahman has violated some of the above ‘Codes of Conduct’ and has thereby committed gross misconduct. In view of the above, the High Court Division is manifestly wrong in declaring the order of removal of Rahman from the office of a judge of the High Court Division without lawful authority.