New Delhi, India — A Supreme Court session, under the purview of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, took an admonitory turn when a lawyer’s casual language incited the justice’s reproach on Monday. Chandrachud cautioned the advocate about maintaining a level of decorum appropriate for the judicial environment, specifically criticizing the use of the term “yeah” instead of “yes” during formal proceedings.
Chandrachud, leading a distinguished career on the bench, underscored the necessity of upholding formal linguistic standards in court, signaling that casual conversational styles were not suitable. This exchange not raised questions about professional conduct within the Indian legal system but also echoed past instances where court decorum was a focal point of Chandrachud’s tenure.
The lawyer, who was presenting arguments related to a previously dismissed case involving former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, now a Rajya Sabha MP, repeatedly peppered his speech with the informal affirmations that caught the Chief Justice’s attention. Gogoi’s actions and subsequent appointments have been contentious, often inviting scrutiny and legal challenge, adding a layer of complexity and public interest to the proceedings.
The specific plea in question involved allegations against Gogoi, accusing him of misconduct during his term in the Supreme Court. Chandrachud challenged the appropriateness of filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with a judge as the respondent, a legal quandary that further intensified the courtroom atmosphere.
During the exchange, as the lawyer continued with his casual affirmations, Chandrachud’s insistence on proper court etiquette underscored his broader commitment to the dignity of the judiciary. He directed the lawyer to amend the plea by removing Gogoi’s name, highlighting the legal and ethical considerations involved in challenging a former judge.
This incident serves as a reflective moment for the legal community on the standards of communication within the courts. Legal experts suggest that maintaining formalities not only respects the gravity of the legal process but also upholds the integrity and perception of impartiality crucial to public trust in the judiciary. Furthermore, it opens a dialogue on how the evolving norms of everyday communication are intersecting with traditional formats and expectations.
Such interactions, though seemingly minor, can set precedents and prompt discussions about the balance between modern linguistic tendencies and the traditional decorums that define institutional proceedings. They also remind legal professionals that the courts are a venue of respect and solemnity, where every word and gesture counts.
Earlier this month, Chandrachud also made headlines for his critical remarks directed at another senior counsel. This counsel had sought judicial intervention in political matters in West Bengal, showcasing the Chief Justice’s active engagement in upholding judicial propriety across a range of issues.
Instances like these not only highlight the ongoing challenges within India’s top judicial echelons but also demonstrate the judiciary’s role in shaping not just legal outcomes but also the conduct of those who practice law. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the expectations and norms of courtroom behavior are likely to garner further attention, influencing future generations of legal practitioners.