Judicial Integrity in Shivamogga: 6 Emotional Voices Challenge

Advocates in Shivamogga have written a formal representation to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court opposing the participation of a sitting High Court judge in a public programme proposed to be presided over by a former minister. The letter, signed by a group of practising advocates, has raised serious concerns about judicial propriety, institutional independence, and the perceived blurring of boundaries between the judiciary and political figures. The development has triggered intense discussion within legal circles, touching upon ethical norms that govern judicial conduct and public perception of impartiality.

According to the advocates, the issue is not merely about attendance at a public function but about the symbolic implications of a sitting judge sharing a platform with a political figure who has previously held executive power. They argue that such appearances, even if ceremonial or academic in nature, risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary. The letter emphasises that the judiciary derives its strength not only from constitutional authority but also from the trust of the people, which must be protected at all costs.

The advocates have reportedly pointed out that Shivamogga, like many other districts, has a politically active social environment where public events often carry implicit political messaging. In such a context, they argue, the presence of a High Court judge at a programme presided over by a former minister could be interpreted as an endorsement or association, regardless of intent. This, they contend, is particularly sensitive at a time when judicial neutrality is under heightened public scrutiny.

The representation to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court underscores that the concern is institutional rather than personal. The advocates have clarified that their objection is not directed at the individual judge’s integrity or character. Instead, it is framed as a principled stand rooted in constitutional morality and long-established conventions governing judicial behaviour. They stress that judges are expected to maintain not only actual independence but also the appearance of independence.

Legal practitioners involved in drafting the letter have referred to established codes of judicial conduct, which caution judges against participating in events that may create an impression of closeness with political personalities. They argue that these norms exist precisely to prevent ambiguity and misinterpretation. In their view, even a well-intentioned appearance can have unintended consequences in a society where symbolism often carries more weight than substance.

The issue has sparked debate among members of the Bar across the State, with some supporting the advocates’ stand while others caution against overreacting. Those supporting the representation argue that vigilance by the Bar is essential to preserving the sanctity of the judiciary. They believe that raising concerns through formal channels reflects a healthy institutional dialogue rather than confrontation.

On the other hand, some lawyers have suggested that judges routinely attend academic, cultural, and social programmes without compromising their independence. They argue that as long as the event is non-political in nature and does not involve policy advocacy, participation should not automatically be viewed as problematic. However, even among this group, there is acknowledgement that perception matters significantly in matters involving judicial ethics.

The Shivamogga advocates, however, remain firm in their position. They argue that the presence of a former minister as the presiding figure alters the character of the event, regardless of its stated purpose. In their view, the distinction between active and former political figures does not eliminate concerns, particularly in regions where political affiliations continue to shape public discourse long after individuals leave office.

The development has also drawn attention to the role of the Bar in acting as a watchdog of judicial propriety. Advocates have historically played a crucial role in upholding constitutional values, not only through litigation but also through ethical engagement. By choosing to write to the highest judicial authorities in the country, the Shivamogga advocates signal their belief that such matters must be addressed within institutional frameworks rather than through public controversy.

Judicial Propriety and the Weight of Public Perception

At the heart of the advocates’ objection lies the concept of judicial propriety, a principle that extends beyond strict legality into the realm of ethical responsibility. Judges, by virtue of their position, are expected to remain detached from political and executive influences. This detachment is not merely functional but symbolic, reinforcing the idea that justice is administered without fear or favour. The advocates argue that public appearances alongside political figures, even former ones, risk diluting this symbolism.

Legal experts note that judicial conduct is governed not only by written rules but also by unwritten conventions developed over decades. These conventions recognise that judges occupy a unique space in public life, where even neutral actions can be subject to interpretation. The Shivamogga advocates’ letter reportedly draws attention to this delicate balance, warning that erosion of conventions can gradually weaken institutional safeguards.

The advocates have also highlighted the timing of the proposed programme as a factor contributing to their concern. In an era marked by intense political polarisation and frequent criticism of institutions, they argue that the judiciary must exercise heightened caution. Any action that could be construed as aligning with political actors, they say, provides ammunition for those seeking to question judicial credibility.

Another aspect raised in the representation is the potential impact on litigants. Advocates argue that members of the public who appear before the courts must feel assured that judges are entirely independent of political influence. Even a perception of association can create doubt in the minds of litigants, particularly those involved in politically sensitive cases. This, they contend, strikes at the core of the right to a fair hearing.

Supporters of the advocates’ stance point out that judicial independence is not compromised overnight but through incremental normalisation of questionable practices. They argue that allowing seemingly minor deviations from established norms can gradually lead to greater erosion. From this perspective, the objection raised by the Shivamogga advocates is seen as a preventive measure rather than an accusatory one.

The letter is also understood to emphasise the responsibility of judges to avoid situations that could lead to future controversies. Legal scholars note that public confidence in the judiciary is fragile and must be nurtured through consistent adherence to ethical standards. Even if no actual impropriety exists, the mere appearance of potential conflict can have lasting consequences.

Some senior advocates have noted that the issue reflects a broader national conversation on judicial accountability and transparency. While independence remains paramount, there is growing public demand for clarity in how judges engage with society beyond the courtroom. The Shivamogga episode adds a new dimension to this debate, highlighting the tension between accessibility and detachment.

The advocates’ choice to address the matter through a written representation rather than public protest has also been noted. This approach underscores respect for institutional processes and judicial hierarchy. By placing their concerns before the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court, the advocates signal their faith in internal corrective mechanisms.

At the same time, the episode raises questions about the absence of clear, uniformly enforced guidelines on judges’ participation in public events. While general principles exist, their application often depends on individual discretion. Some legal experts argue that clearer protocols could help avoid such controversies by providing unambiguous boundaries.

Bar–Bench Relations and the Larger Constitutional Message

The Shivamogga advocates’ representation has inevitably drawn attention to the dynamic relationship between the Bar and the Bench. Traditionally, this relationship is characterised by mutual respect, with advocates playing a crucial role in assisting the judiciary while also holding it accountable to constitutional values. The current episode reflects this delicate balance, where concern is expressed without undermining institutional dignity.

Bar associations across the State have reportedly discussed the issue informally, with opinions divided on whether the objection sets a necessary precedent or risks creating friction. Those in favour argue that the Bar must remain vigilant, especially when ethical questions arise. They see the letter as an affirmation of the legal community’s commitment to safeguarding judicial independence.

Critics, however, caution that frequent objections to judges’ public engagements could create an atmosphere of mistrust. They argue that judges are not expected to remain isolated from society and that interaction with various sections of the public can enhance understanding and empathy. From this perspective, the challenge lies in distinguishing between acceptable engagement and ethically problematic association.

The Shivamogga advocates counter this argument by reiterating that their objection is narrowly focused. They emphasise that the issue is not public engagement per se but the specific context of sharing a platform with a political figure. They argue that such distinctions are crucial and must be recognised to maintain clarity in ethical standards.

The response of the judiciary to the representation will be closely watched. Legal observers suggest that even an internal advisory or clarification could have a significant impact on future conduct. A measured response, they say, could reinforce ethical norms while also addressing concerns raised by the Bar.

The episode also serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role as a constitutional sentinel. In a democratic framework, the judiciary’s authority rests not on coercive power but on moral legitimacy. Actions that risk undermining this legitimacy, however unintentionally, must therefore be examined with seriousness.

For the advocates involved, the issue transcends the immediate event. They view their representation as part of a broader effort to reaffirm constitutional boundaries at a time when institutional roles are increasingly contested. By invoking the attention of the highest judicial authorities, they seek to reinforce the idea that ethical vigilance is a shared responsibility.

Public reaction to the development has been mixed, reflecting broader societal debates on the role of judges in public life. Some members of the public view the objection as overly cautious, while others see it as a necessary assertion of principle. This divergence itself highlights the complexity of maintaining public trust in institutions.

As discussions continue, the Shivamogga episode may well contribute to a deeper examination of judicial ethics in contemporary India. Whether it leads to clearer guidelines, renewed dialogue between the Bar and the Bench, or simply greater awareness of ethical sensitivities, its significance extends beyond the immediate controversy.

Ultimately, the advocates’ representation underscores a fundamental truth of constitutional governance: institutions endure not merely through authority but through restraint. The judiciary’s strength lies in its ability to command respect by adhering to the highest standards of conduct. In raising their voice, the advocates of Shivamogga have sought to remind all stakeholders of this enduring principle, framing their objection not as dissent, but as an appeal to conscience and constitutional fidelity.