The loneliness of the judges
The life of a serving judge is often cloaked in an aura of dignity and authority, but beneath this exterior lies a profound solitude that few outside the judiciary understand. Judges, entrusted with the weighty responsibility of interpreting laws and delivering justice, often find themselves isolated socially and emotionally.
This isolation is not just a byproduct of their profession; it is a deeply ingrained aspect of their role, shaped by ethical codes, relentless workloads, and the inherent nature of judicial decision-making. The combination of power, isolation, and disconnection from ground reality exacerbates the loneliness experienced by judges, creating a complex web of challenges that affect their mental health and professional effectiveness.
Judges wield significant power, which can lead to a sense of detachment from the community they serve. This power dynamic often results in a heightened level of respect and deference from others, making it difficult for judges to form genuine, non-professional relationships. As noted by judges themselves, once they ascend to the Bench, their social circle shrinks, and they often lose their first name and will be known only by their title.
The isolation inherent in judicial roles is compounded by the need for impartiality and the ethical restrictions that limit their social interactions. This isolation can lead to a disconnection from the ground reality, as judges may not fully engage with the broader community outside their professional sphere. This disconnection can impair their ability to understand the social context of cases, potentially affecting their decision-making.
Judges face immense stress from handling high-profile cases, compounded by loneliness, leading to burnout and compassion fatigue. These challenges can harm their morale, health, and relationships, while impairing decision-making. Addressing this requires peer support networks, stress management strategies, and community engagement opportunities. Ultimately, systemic support is essential to protect their well-being and uphold judicial integrity.
Loneliness among judges is not a new phenomenon. Anecdotal accounts from judges reveal the gradual erosion of social connections as they ascend to the Bench. Many describe their transition into judicial office as akin to entering a 'monastery' — a life marked by anonymity and detachment. The restrictions imposed by the Code of Judicial Conduct prevent judges from maintaining casual social relationships with lawyers or engaging freely in community activities. Over time, this professional isolation morphs into personal loneliness, leaving judges to grapple with feelings of invisibility and disconnection.
Psychological toll
The psychological toll of this loneliness is significant. Empirical research on judicial stress has shown that judges experience elevated levels of burnout, secondary trauma, and emotional exhaustion. While their rates of depression may be lower than those in the broader legal profession, the constant pressure to remain impartial and composed exacerbates their vulnerability to mental distress.
From a neuroscientific perspective, loneliness is far more than an emotional state — it has tangible effects on brain function and overall health. Chronic loneliness triggers stress responses in the brain, impairing cognitive functions such as memory and decision-making. Prolonged isolation has been linked to accelerated cognitive decline and increased risks for conditions such as heart disease and dementia. For judges who must process complex legal arguments and deliver decisions that impact lives, these neurological effects can compromise their ability to perform effectively.
Addressing judicial loneliness requires systemic interventions tailored to the unique challenges of this profession. Peer support networks can provide judges with safe spaces to share experiences and foster camaraderie. Mental health programmes designed for judicial officers can help mitigate stress and promote emotional well-being. Encouraging work-life balance through manageable caseloads and periodic breaks from emotionally taxing cases can reduce burnout. This difficulty is inherent to family court judges who deal only with emotionally draining cases such as divorce, custody, and guardianship daily.
The loneliness experienced by judges is not just a personal struggle but a societal issue with far-reaching consequences. By recognising this silent challenge and implementing meaningful solutions, we can safeguard the mental health of those who dedicate their lives to justice while preserving the integrity of our legal systems. In an era where loneliness afflicts millions globally, addressing its impact within the judiciary is timely and necessary.
anaushram44@gmail.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.'s plea against Centre over education funds
The Supreme Court on Monday (June 9, 2025) refused to accord urgent hearing to a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for allegedly withholding over ₹2,151 crore in central education funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme for 2024-2025. A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan took note of the fact that the State government filed the petition in May alleging withholding of central funds for 2024 and this year also. "There is no urgency and it can be taken up after the 'partial working days' (the new name of summer vacation)," the Bench said. In May, the Tamil Nadu government moved the top court against the Centre for allegedly withholding the funds. The DMK government's plea, filed against the Union Ministry of Education, invokes Article 131 of the Constitution which provides exclusive jurisdiction to the top court to hear pleas between the Centre and one or more States, or between one or more States. The State government alleged the Centre attempted to force the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the associated PM SHRI Schools Scheme which it strongly objected to, particularly the contentious three-language formula. The top court, therefore, was urged to declare that the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme are not binding on the plaintiff State unless and until a formal agreement is entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for their implementation within Tamil Nadu . The lawsuit has also sought a declaration that the action of the Centre to link Tamil Nadu's entitlement to receive funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme to the implementation of the NEP, 2020, and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme within the State are unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable . It has also urged the top court to declare the Centre's letters of February 23, 2024 and March 07, 2024 as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding on the State government. The plea sought a direction to the Centre to pay "₹2,291,30,24,769 (two thousand two hundred and ninety-one crore thirty lakhs twenty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine) within a time frame to be fixed by this court" along with a future interest of 6% per annum on the "principal sum of ₹2,151,59,61,000 (two thousand one hundred and fifty-one crore fifty nine lakh and sixty one thousand) from May 1, 2025 until realisation of the decree". The dispute stems from the non-release of central funds under the Scheme, a flagship centrally sponsored programme for school education aimed at universalising quality education. The Project Approval Board (PAB) of the Ministry of Education had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu for FY 2024 25, of which the Union Government's committed 60% share amounted to ₹2,151.59 crore. The plea said despite this approval, no instalments have been disbursed by the Centre as yet. The Centre, it said, unilaterally linked the release of these funds to Tamil Nadu's full implementation of NEP 2020 and the signing of an MoU for the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, conditions which were neither part of the original Samagra Shiksha Scheme nor agreed upon by the State. The reason for such non-disbursement is that the defendant has linked the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds with the implementation of national education policy and NEP exemplary PM SHRI Schools' Scheme despite the fact that these policy/scheme are separate schemes, it said. Also read: How the two-language policy officially came into force in the State of Madras Referring to the impact of non-release of Samagra Shiksha funds, the plea said paying salaries was crucial in maintaining competent and motivated teachers and supporting staff. It directly impacts the quality of education provided to students and contributes to overall societal development by nurturing the next generation with the skills and knowledge needed for success, it added.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Indian courts today are not defending free speech. They are managing it. And in this curious inversion of constitutional values, we are witnessing a quiet retreat from the principle that animated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: that speech, even provocative, offensive, or unsettling, is the citizen's shield against tyranny — not its tool. Once envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark of our democracy, the judiciary now increasingly resembles an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies and deference in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. But when courts focus on what was said rather than why the right to say it must be protected, the Republic is left vulnerable to a new tyranny: that of sentiment, outrage, and the lowest tolerance denominator. Let us begin with a chillingly ordinary example: a social media post by a 24-year-old man criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi. after the ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Was this tasteless? Perhaps. But taste is not a constitutional metric. The Allahabad High Court thought otherwise. In rejecting the plea to quash the first information report (FIR), the Bench declared that 'emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute'. That is a remarkable formulation. It subtly inverts the constitutional design: the citizen is no longer the source of power holding the state to account, but a child to be reprimanded for speaking too freely. A validation of outrage Instead of interpreting Article 19(1)(a) as a liberty that limits state power, courts have begun treating it as a licence that comes with behavioural conditions — conditions defined not by law but by the perceived dignity of public figures and institutions. Take the Kamal Haasan controversy in connection with his film, Thug Life. The actor made a remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil. The Karnataka High Court responded not by evaluating whether the actor's statement met the threshold of incitement, defamation, or hate, but by advising him to apologise to the 'sentiments of the masses'. This advice is corrosive. When courts suggest apologies for lawful speech, they set a precedent that expression must pass a popularity test. They validate the very outrage that threatens free speech, rather than shielding expression from it. An apology does not close the loop but only widens it, inviting further claims of offence. In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs Union Of India, the 'digital content creator and podcaster' was confronted with judicial comments bordering on cultural supervision for his use of explicit language in a podcast. The court directed the Union to clarify whether such 'vulgar' language fell outside constitutional protection. Here again, the concern was not whether the speech incited harm, but on whether it offended prevailing norms of taste and modesty — a dangerously subjective threshold. Similarly, historian and a professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, was dragged into proceedings after sharing critical views on the optics of India using a woman soldier to explain its war situation with Pakistan. The argument was that his comments hurt sentiments. That it even reached court underscores the problem: invoking hurt feelings is now sufficient to invite judicial scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech. The professor's scholarly critique became a matter for judicial assessment and a special investigation to assess whether there was any dog whistle intent that played on the fragility of the audience. A misreading Two disturbing patterns emerge from these cases. First, the judiciary is increasingly equating speech that provokes emotional reactions with legally actionable harm. This misreads the Constitution and the rationale of a democracy. The test for restricting speech under Article 19(2) is not whether it angers, irritates, or offends but whether it incites violence, hatred or disrupts public order. Second, by encouraging apologies and moral policing of language, courts create a perverse incentive. The more outrage a comment generates, the more likely it is to be litigated. This does not protect society. It emboldens mobs and serial litigants. It creates a market for offence. This shift is starkly evident in cases that involve the armed forces. In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court denied the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, relief in a defamation case on his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army . The High Court said that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to 'defame' the military. But defamation, as a legal standard, must be carefully assessed particularly when invoked by or on behalf of state institutions by busy-bodies. Likewise, in a previous first information report against a man using the word 'coward' to describe the Prime Minister after the recent military stand-down, the court saw no issue with Sections 152 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being invoked — laws meant for threats to sovereignty and public mischief . These laws, meant for sedition-like scenarios, are being contorted to punish sarcasm and satire. It is telling that courts will routinely deny the quashing of FIRs in such cases, claiming that it is too early to interfere and that police investigations must run their course. But this abdication is neither neutral nor passive. For the citizen facing criminal prosecution, the process itself is the punishment. The system does not need a conviction to chill speech. A summons and a charge sheet do the job. The Madras High Court has occasionally resisted this drift. But this was more about narrative correction than structural protection of speech. Courts in India must return to a principle-centric model of speech protection. Instead of obsessing over what was said, they must ask whether the speaker's right was violated, and not someone else's sentiment. Apologies should not be judicial recommendations. They should be individual choices. Otherwise, courts become confessional booths where speech is absolved not by legal reasoning but by remorse. And remorse demanded is remorse devalued — it empowers the outraged, not the rational. The signal to the citizen Moreover, as long as laws such as sedition or the ever-morphing public order clauses remain vague, courts must lean toward liberty. The doctrine of 'chilling effect' that is robust in American and European jurisprudence, has been acknowledged in India's courts but seldom enforced with spine. This is not just about high-profile speech or celebrities. It is about the slow attrition of constitutional confidence. When a YouTuber is told to bleep a joke, or a professor is dragged to court for a tweet, or a film-maker is told to grovel for linguistic pride the signal to the ordinary citizen is clear: express only what is safe, bland and agreeable. But democracies are not built on agreeable speech. They thrive on disagreement — noisy, rude, even reckless at times. The test of a society's strength is not how well it tolerates politeness, but how it handles provocation. Free speech is not just about giving offence, but about withstanding it. If India is to preserve its democratic soul, it must restore the dignity of dissent. It must not demand the dignity of institutions at the cost of liberty. Judges are the guardians of the Constitution, and not the curators of culture. They must protect the right to speak and not the comfort of the listener. Because when speech is chilled in courtrooms, freedom dies not with a bang, but with a sigh of deference. The new age of judicial sensitivity to sentiments is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of regression. It confuses harmony with homogeneity, and respect with restraint. Apologies should never be a legal strategy. And speech should not need blessings to be legitimate. Let our courts not forget that the Republic was not born from politeness but from protest. The Constitution came from the pen of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also wrote, '…the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible'. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
The Hindu
6 days ago
- The Hindu
Have publicly pledged to refuse post-retirement jobs: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has said that he and his colleagues in the Supreme Court have publicly pledged to not undermine the public's trust in judicial integrity by accepting post-retirement roles or positions from the government. Speaking at a round table in the U.K. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Gavai said a judge contesting elections for political office immediately after retirement or resignation could lead to doubts about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, 'as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or as an attempt to gain favour with the government'. 'If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the Bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny… The timing and nature of such post-retirement engagements could undermine the public's trust in the judiciary's integrity, as it could create a perception that judicial decisions were influenced by the prospect of future government appointments or political involvement,' Chief Justice Gavai said during a discussion on 'Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence'. The Chief Justice referred to the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015 as a counter-action to government's efforts to dilute judicial independence, saying 'there may be criticisms of the Collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control'. 'Judiciary acts as a counterbalance against the arbitrary exercise of power… Certain fundamental principles, such as democracy, rule of law, and the separation of powers, are inviolable and cannot be altered,' the CJI said. Chief Justice Gavai acknowledged the recent incidents of corruption in judiciary but said the path to handling judicial misdemeanour and re-build the path to public trust was 'swift, decisive, and transparent action'. 'In India, when such instances have come to light, the Supreme Court has consistently taken immediate and appropriate measures to address the misconduct,' the CJI said even as the Parliament is expected to bring a removal motion against High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma. The Chief Justice also referred to the voluntary disclosure of assets by the judges of the Supreme Court to promote greater accountability and ethical leadership, live streaming of court proceedings, real-time information on case pendency offered on the National Judicial Data Grid, translation of apex court judgments to regional languages and broader access to justice for vulnerable communities through the public interest litigation system. 'Article 32, which guarantees all citizens the fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court, has been referred to as the 'soul' and 'heart' of the Constitution,' the CJI noted. Chief Justice Gavai highlighted the importance of courts having an independent power of judicial review while examining the constitutionality of laws. The court is currently seized of a challenge to the amendments to the waqf law. 'Courts must have the power of independent judicial review, allowing judges to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions that conflict with the provisions of the Constitution or established constitutional principles,' the CJI said.
