EVOLUTION AND RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL
EDUCATION
By
DR. FAQIR HUSSAIN,
Registrar, Supreme Court of
Both
the developed as well as developing nations are striving to improve the
performance of their judicial systems, so as to meet the demands/challenges of
evolving societies, emerging realities and complexities of life. Thus, the
movement for legal and judicial reform has gathered momentum. There is an
increasing impetus for reform of the legal/judicial system to have a stable and
predictable legal system and an organized and efficient system of judicial
administration. The key elements of an effective judicial system are the
possession of essential qualities in judges such as knowledge of law/procedure,
judicial skills, integrity and professionalism. These are the necessary conditions
for an efficient judicial system. There is, therefore, a growing momentum for
judicial training and continuing judicial education to improve the performance
of Courts and attain public confidence in the administration of justice.
The
stress for an effective judicial system has a purpose: the system of judicial
administration has close nexus with good governance, maintenance of peace in
society and socio-economic development. George Washington said over two hundred
years ago, "the true administration
of justice is the firmest pillar of good government”. Good governance has
become the rallying cry of present-day democratic and other form of
governments. It is indeed the stated objective of every constitutional
dispensation. Nations, having established good governance, made phenomenal
advancement and are enjoying today the fruits of its achievement viz economic growth, socio-political development, high
per-capita income and enjoyment of essential fundamental rights including the
right to life, liberty, property and freedom of thought, expression, religion,
association, profession and information, etc.
Contrary
to the imminent and pressing need of judicial training, progress towards
setting up training institutes for judges has been slow and tardy. Thus,
formalized judicial education is a relatively new development in the world. As
against the life span of judicial administration, spanning over several
centuries, judicial training programmes have had a
short history. The earliest example is the establishment of
In
the European Continent, the civil law countries instituted training programmes earlier than the common law states, with
emphasis on pre-service orientation/training. This was on account of the fact
that the civil law countries inducted judges from amongst fresh graduates, as
compared to the practice in the common law countries, where experienced lawyers
are appointed as judges. Indeed, in the common law jurisdictions, there
prevailed a conspicuous distaste for judicial training. The judges mocked at
the idea of imparting training to or educating the learned
lawyers-turned-adjudicators. The prejudice still lingers on at the level of
superior Courts' judges. As a consequence, there are hardly any models of
judicial education to imitate or programmes to
replicate. Therefore, best practices are hard to find. To remove misconceptions
about the programme of continuing judicial education,
Catlin, the Head of the Michigan Judicial Institute, observed:[1]
Lawyers
don't become good judges by the wave of a magic wand. Not even the best
lawyers. To reappear behind the bench as a skilled jurist is a tricky manoeuvre. Going from adversary to
adjudicator means changing one's attitude, learning and using new skills, and
in some cases severing old ties. In many jurisdictions, judges must
learn their new roles by the seat of their pants. In
While
the American experience set the lead in the field of judicial education, the
other nations, including common law countries, followed suit. In a short span
of three decades or so, there emerged a sea-change in attitudes, as many
countries across the globe established judicial training institutes. In the words of Sallmann, [2] "[The increase in judicial education]
might well be described without exaggeration as an explosion of activity in the
field in the last decade."
Hence, Nicholson observed, "Judicial education is now an accepted part of
judicial life in many countries."[3]
The
need for judicial education is commonly acknowledged and strongly emphasized.
This is on account of rising expectations of the public from the judiciary to
organize itself on professional lines to perform better, so as to settle
disputes, restore rights, redress grievances, grant relief and dispense justice
to all manner of people, without fear or favour,
affection or ill-will.
The
National Association of States Judicial Educators in the
Judge
William W Schwarzer, Director,
The
scope of judicial education is fairly wide. The main curriculum generally
includes substantive/procedural law, legal skills, judicial ethics and personal
welfare. The judges must develop skills that will enable them to serve
effectively. Thus, training programmes cover areas
like case management, use of procedures/practices, computer skills,
communication skills, judicial ethics and professional conduct as well as
managing once personal life including physical and mental health, .stress
management and work habits.
The
primary objective of judicial education is the establishment of a skilled
judicial corps, whose personnel are imbibed with the spirit of professionalism
and possessing the requisite qualities of detachment, impartiality, competency,
efficiency and professionalism. Competency and professionalism in turn leads to
greater confidence in one's ability to deliver and offer one's self for
accountability. A competent judge, imbued with qualities of professionalism and
feeling accountable, has no fear of anyone or anything. He performs functions
with complete independence of mind. Thus, judicial training and education serve
to make judges acquire the necessary knowledge, competence and independence to
take on the challenges, resist inducement, temptation and extraneous influences.
This in turn enhances public faith and trust in the judiciary.
Judicial
independence is an essential element of democracy.[4]
Lord Hailsham sees the independence of judiciary as a
bastion against the "absolutist theory of democracy".[5]
Democracy entails a system of governance based on the doctrine of separation of
powers between the three organs viz legislature,
executive and judiciary, linked with the principle of checks and
balances, so that no organ may ingress
into the domain of the other. The judiciary acts as a referee to let each organ
play its role fully and effectively and watch against any encroachment or
intrusion in its functioning. It is mandated to act as an impartial arbiter for
settling inter-governmental conflicts and disputes between citizens or citizen
and government. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, independent, impartial and
competent judiciary operates as a bulwark against oppression, injustice,
discrimination and guardian of fundamental rights and freedoms.
[1] Catlin
DW,
[2] Sallmann PA, ComParative Judicial
Education in a Nutshell, Journal of Judicial Administration, 1993
[3]
[4] Livingston
Armytage, Educating Judges: Towards a New Model of
Continuing Juidicial Learning, Kluwer
Law International,
[5] Lord
Hailsham, Democracy and Judicial