Can't cope up with meanness...

Indian Judiciary seemingly is still in the clutches of feudalism, a vestige left by the British. No doubt that justice deserves paramount respect and by extension all who adjudicate it and implement it also.

Judiciary does have its own decorum and also language. Thus the ‘Lordship’ a clear investiture of feudalism was prevalent till recently. Now it could be ‘sir’ or ‘your honor’ instead.

In most of the case it is also evident that most of the judicial officers feel honored only when they are addressed as ‘your honor’ or the like and not otherwise! Salutation/respecting such as folding one’s hands at the beginning are ok, but not always. Also any passage through the courtroom should not obstruct the eye contact of the officer and the other party whether an accused, a witness or a counsel. For that one need not be moving in a bend posture as if were before an egoistic emperor or so. If it were not ‘obeisance’, what it is?

Before law all are equal, including the judicial officers. But they should not think that they are the goddess of justice and we are all poor, helpless lots beseeching their ‘lordships’ or ‘honors’ favor or so.

Can one always use the term ‘your honor’ and should one? What is wrong in addressing with mere ‘you’? ‘You’ is equally honorary plural too. Or else one can even use the archaic ‘thou’ instead, but not always ‘your honor.’

It was that happened when I represented one of our senior advocates in one of the courts/tribunals today. There were three cases and the advocate could not make it due to the death of one of her first cousins. To my shock, all the three were seemingly given the last chance this time! All the three cases were called at the roll calls and all were kept for later hearing in spite of my submission regarding the absence of the counsel due to a death and funeral. The officer was not in a mood to listen anyone, let alone my submissions. Again it was called one after another. And only for the second case at the second instance he seemingly heeded my submission and adjourned the hearing. To that I responded, ‘I have already told you’. At that very instance he reacted suggesting rather ‘contempt’ procedure! I was stunned and to my dismay, the opposite counsel seemed approving the officer’s stand! When apologized he seemed happy and said ‘fair it is’! 

Earlier he even objected to my use of ‘please’ too! Is legal language so sacred? It is a kind of ritual/formality obsession and that too in this age of information technology explosion. If only he realized, ‘man is not made for Sabbath, but Sabbath for man.’