- JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL

Gauhati High Court

A country is known, respected and recognised globally if its economy is strong, democracy has deep roots in society, has good governance and a well-established rule of law.

Of equal importance and also of the same relevance in this regard is the existence of progressive legislation and a strong and independent judiciary, with sovereign power to undertake judicial review of the constitutional validity of legislation.

As a matter of fact, a vibrant and non-pliable judiciary is one of the parameters for recognition of a country as a developed nation and a sine qua non for determining its comparative status among nations.

Thus, a strong and independent judiciary, capable of handling challenges, not only thrown by enlightened citizens but also by its legislature is what goes into the making of a progressive and well developed nation.

A judiciary of such stature which commands respect and contributes towards wining such status for a country calls for not only morally strong and legally sound judges but also requires such judges to be well trained, well equipped and well informed in their sphere of work. This is where continued legal education assumes importance.

The justice delivery system basically involved judges, lawyers, police officials, forensic experts and also executive officers of other wings. In other words, the judicial systems and the administrative systems of justice involve almost all the organs of the government machinery. It is the teamwork that ultimately contributes towards resolution of disputes between parties.

It is said justice should not only be done, it must also be ensured. Such a standard of perfection can be achieved only if all the organs involved in justice delivery system are well equipped with infrastructure, tools and legal and scientific literature.

In this regard, it would be better to bear in mind that such tools of performance, including the literature, undergo changes and even become outdated with the passage of time and need refinement, updating and replacement from time to time. As a consequence, persons operating those tools and manning the different offices connected with the system also need regular updating of their knowledge to keep pace with new emerging laws, changes in society, innovations in science and technologies and so on. Hence, the need for continued legal education for the different functionaries concerned with administration of justice.

It is very often said that sharing of knowledge is also gaining knowledge. However, in practice it is seen that persons who possess certain special knowledge in a particular professional field are reluctant to share their skill gratuitously, based on a wrong notion that by doing so they will create their own competitors.

Interestingly, on the other hand, instances are not lacking where even persons who stand to gain by such sharing of knowledge have reservations about availing of such advantage. For instance, the concept of training was not received well initially in any part of the world. Many members of the judiciary did not welcome proposals initiated in England and Australia in the late 1970’s for training of magistrates, tribunal personnel and judges.

The concept of institutionalised legal and judicial education even in the developed countries of the world is not too old. Training in the judicial field was first initiated and accepted in France in 1958. This was followed by the US establishing the National Judicial College in 1963. United Kingdom followed suit by establishing the Judicial Studies Board in 1979.

However, formal training for judicial officers began in 1987 after a long debate. The Canadian Judicial Council conducted its first training session in 1972, but its Judicial Training Institute started operation only in 1988. Australia also adopted an identical training scheme in 1975.

Back home, though state-level training institutes had already been functioning in some states, the first national centre for judicial training and education in India — the National Judicial Academy at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh — came up only in 2005.

Thus, the concept of continued judicial education for the judicial officers through induction training and in-service training is a recent phenomenon in our country.

It is, however, regrettable that judicial officers themselves are prejudiced towards undergoing training. They think it will undermine their authority in courts and in public, and such training is likely to give a message in society that judges are under-qualified and not properly informed in law as they still need further and full education.

They feel that the very term “training” gives rise to perceptions that litigants are not getting proper justice at the hands of under-qualified and incompetent persons, which results in lowering their image and authority in the eye of their own staff and public in general. The judicial officers also entertain a view that training may bring stereotyped judicial decisions.

Amidst these myths and wrong perceptions the judicial officers opt for training courses reluctantly or under compulsion from superior authority.

The judicial officers, lawyers and all other officers who are involved in the justice delivery system are oblivious of the merits, benefits and advantages of training courses, a few salient beneficial features of which are noted below:

• Judicial education makes judicial officers professionals. It helps render justice faster

• The training increases the confidence and authority level of judges. It also enhances rationality in judicial interpretation of laws, which helps in rendering bold judgments, quite oblivious to political repercussions. This leads to judicial independence

• It enhances judicial approach, which results in the improved service in the delivery system

• It gives opportunity to officers to overcome individual biases. In judicial colloquia, seminars, workshops, among others, the officers can express their hidden prejudices

• It helps remove potential inconsistencies and conflicts in judicial decisions

• Legal literacy helps the officers in acquainting themselves with the changes in law

• It offers the opportunity to find grey areas where the existing laws need modification and/or to interpret the laws in accordance with new international treaties and covenants

• Training helps in use of science and new technology, which may increase perfection in judicial decisions

It is difficult to prepare a complete chart of benefits of training.

Only a handful examples of advantages of judicial workshops have been set out above, which can be termed snapshots of training merits.

As a whole, merit of continued judicial education/training far outweighs the apprehended demerits