The loneliness of the judges
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
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
HC lists multiple flaws in Punjab's land pooling policy, explains reasons for stay
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has spelt out in detail why it stayed the Punjab government's Land Pooling Policy, 2025, in its order passed on August 7 and released today. The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda listed a series of legal and procedural shortcomings — from the absence of environmental and social impact studies to the lack of timelines, grievance redressal and budgetary clarity. Policy 'notified in haste' The court said it was 'prima facie… of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste' without addressing key concerns. These included Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), fixed timelines for execution, and a grievance redressal mechanism — all of which, it said, 'should have been addressed at the very outset… before its notification.' No impact assessments before large-scale land takeover The Bench noted that the State planned to 'take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land' without first conducting SIA or EIA, despite Supreme Court directives that environmental studies must precede urban development. It cited Resident's Welfare Association vs UT of Chandigarh (2023), in which the apex court had urged governments to strike 'a proper balance… between sustainable development and environmental protection' and to make EIA studies mandatory before permitting urban expansion. Compulsory acquisition built into 'voluntary' scheme While the government maintained the policy was 'purely voluntary', the court pointed to Clause 6 of the May 14 notification, which allowed land not offered under the pooling scheme to be acquired compulsorily under the 2013 land acquisition law. This, it held, brought the policy within the definition of a 'project' under the Act, triggering the requirement for impact studies and other safeguards. No provision for the landless The order flagged the absence of any rehabilitation plan for landless labourers, artisans, MGNREGA workers and others dependent on the targeted land. 'Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those… dependent on the land,' it observed. The Bench also reminded that acquisition of multi-cropped land was barred under the 2013 law, except in exceptional circumstances. No timelines, no grievance mechanism The court said there were no prescribed timelines for key stages — voluntary participation, taking possession, starting or completing development, delivering developed land to owners, or paying subsistence allowances. It also found no grievance redressal framework or penalty provisions for delays and non-delivery. Budgetary gap Noting that the Amicus Curiae had estimated development costs at ₹1.25 crore per acre — about ₹10,000 crore for Ludhiana district alone — the Bench recorded that the State's counsel had 'no instructions' on whether any budgetary provision had been made. Past delays under pooling policies The judges referred to earlier instances where landowners surrendered plots under previous pooling schemes but waited years without receiving the promised developed land. In one case from Mohali, they noted, 'developed plots have not been allotted even after ten years' and no development had started in the concerned sectors. Fertile farmland at stake Calling the land 'amongst the most fertile in the State of Punjab', the court said the acquisition could 'impact the social milieu' and emphasised the need for careful evaluation before proceeding. Stay to prevent creation of rights The policy notified on May 14 and June 4, and amended on July 25, was stayed 'lest any rights are created', with the matter to be taken up again on September 10. The State has been asked to address all concerns and complete its reply before that date.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Punjab and Haryana High Court flags gaps in Punjab's Land pooling policy; says notified in ‘haste'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the Punjab government's controversial Land Pooling Policy-2025 prima facie appears to have been notified in 'haste' and that all concerns — including social and environmental impact assessments, timelines and a grievance redress mechanism — should have been addressed in the policy before its notification. These observations were made in a detailed order in connection with a writ petition challenging the policy. On August 7, the court granted an interim stay on its implementation and gave the State four weeks to respond to the concerns. The next hearing is scheduled for September 10. 'The State proposes to take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land in the entire State of Punjab for carrying out its proposed development work, without carrying out any Social Impact Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment study, although a stand is taken that the assessment would be carried out later when they have definite information about the number of land owners who have opted for the scheme,' the court noted. It added, 'It has been held by the Supreme Court in several cases that before permitting urban development, the State ought to carry out an environmental impact assessment.' The Bench also pointed out that the policy prescribes no timelines and provides no mechanism to address grievances of affected persons. 'Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those landless labourers, artisans and others who are dependent on the land,' it said. 'It has also been submitted before this Court that the State's statutory bodies shall themselves develop the land, but no budgetary provisions appear to have been made, nor anything has been put forth before this Court to indicate that the State has adequate resources to finance the development project under the policy,' the order stated. The Aam Aadmi Party government had notified the Land Pooling Policy-2025 on June 4. According to the government, the policy aims to create well-planned urban estates to meet the needs of a growing population by consolidating fragmented land parcels and ensuring equitable, sustainable development. Since its launch, several farmer bodies and political parties have been protesting, demanding its withdrawal.
New Indian Express
9 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Orissa HC pulls up government over cow slaughter
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has taken serious note of the alleged failure of the state government to implement the Odisha Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960, in its true spirit. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman, while hearing a PIL on Thursday, issued firm directions to the state to appoint a competent authority under the Act within three weeks. The bench observed that despite a complete prohibition on cow slaughter under section 3 of the Act, illegal practices were continuing unchecked across Odisha. While bull or bullock slaughter may be allowed under certain circumstances, such cases require a written certificate issued by a competent authority, a post that, according to the Bench, has not been filled by the state government since the Act's enactment. The court held that the lack of appointment of a competent authority had effectively rendered the law unworkable, reducing the 1960 Act to a 'dead letter'. 'We direct the state government to appoint the competent authority within three weeks from the date of communication of this order and submit a report on the next date,' the court ordered. The case will now be taken up on September 1.
