Judges are often perceived as beacons of justice; their role demands a profound journey from emotionality to impartiality. In this context, judges must consciously cultivate an attitude of mindful detachment from intense emotions, especially anger, to anchor their decisions in the bedrock of rational analysis and impartial application of the law.
Empirical research reveals that anger markedly impairs decision-making. The implications of this finding are particularly profound within the judiciary, where sound judgment is not just paramount but forms the very essence of the profession. Judges, therefore, are tasked with the duty to maintain neutrality and objectivity and to be acutely aware of how anger can warp their reasoning and precipitate erroneous verdicts.
Also read | Courts can’t be swayed by emotions, says Supreme Court
This awareness necessitates preventive measures. Reflecting on a decade of legal practice before the Supreme Court, one of us (Rahman) recalls witnessing numerous fiery exchanges between lawyers and judges which can easily be categorised as angry discourse. Yet, only on one rare occasion was a case adjourned due to a judge’s visible anger towards a lawyer’s request for adjournment. This incident, albeit isolated, is a testament to the judiciary’s cognisance of anger’s detrimental effects on sound decision-making. Maintaining emotional equanimity, therefore, is essential for judges to fulfil their responsibility of delivering fair and impartial judgments. Anger does not necessarily mean a violent outburst but even a mere silence and refusal to engage.
A thorough approach
The work of Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman offers insights into our propensity for cognitive shortcuts in decision-making. Shaped by evolutionary ‘fight or flight’ instincts, we are predisposed to rely on heuristics — mental shortcuts that enable us to swiftly navigate and react to our environment. While these patterns are crucial for survival, they pose significant challenges in the arena of judicial decision-making, where the requirement of proof is often beyond reasonable doubt. Since the court has held that evidence is weighed, not counted, it is crucial for judges to be cognisant of situations when the weight is that of ego, anger, or predispositions.
The legal system, in contrast to the instinctual immediacy of the fight-or-flight response, demands a methodical and thorough approach to judgment. Unlike the rapid ‘two and two together’ calculations typical of our heuristics, judicial reasoning is governed by evidentiary rules and established protocols, which prohibit leaps of logic and unsubstantiated conclusions. In the sphere of criminal law, for instance, circumstantial evidence seldom leads to definitive judgments. Judges are instead charged with the task of weighing several factors, including, most crucially, the element of doubt.
In this intricate tapestry of legal reasoning, the pernicious influence of anger and personal biases is alarmingly evident. Such emotions can contaminate the deliberative process, leading to skewed judgments. Seemingly trivial matters like non-adherence to margins in the filing or even taking a sip of water in the courtroom have invited the wrath of judges. While court manners deserve their appropriate place in the bar and bench relationship, minor infractions are best ignored unless they interfere with the administration of justice.
In the past, if a lawyer was not correctly dressed, the judges would simply look through and refuse to acknowledge them. This underscores a deeper issue: the necessity for judges to exercise emotional restraint, even in the face of perceived disrespect or non-conformity to tradition. Such instances illustrate the thin line between personal sensitivities and judicial decorum, and the need for judges to navigate this divide with emotional maturity. Being a judge is difficult and daunting, largely because it involves giving up many things that make us human. There is no doubt that lawyers and judges irritate each other but the relationship is intended to brew nothing but fair decision which is as close to being correct as is humanly possible.
There is no doubt that judges face serious challenges in maintaining emotional neutrality. When activated, anger has a lingering effect on mental processes, further complicating and compromising the already complex task of judicial decision-making. Anger often leads to indiscriminate punitive responses, fostering carelessness in thought and a propensity for hasty action. Thus, a judge swayed by anger or bias is at risk of imposing disproportionate penalties or becoming unmindful of crucial legal nuances.
Controlling emotions
Recognising and addressing the impact of affective states like anger is not just an individual responsibility but a cornerstone of maintaining the integrity and fairness of the legal system. Recognising the infiltration of emotions like anger and bias in decision-making processes is the initial, critical step. Once this awareness is established, various strategies can be employed to mitigate their influence.
One effective method is the cultivation of mindfulness. Rooted in the principles of meditation, mindfulness involves a heightened awareness of one’s thoughts, emotions, and environment. For judges, this can allow for the recognition of emotional states without being overpowered by them. Where necessary, a coffee break must follow to improve decision-making. The journey towards emotional wisdom in the courtroom is critical not only for enhancing judicial competence but also for reinforcing public trust in the justice system.
Eklavya Vasudev is a lawyer and PhD Candidate at the Friedrich Alexander Universität of Nuremberg, Germany; Talha Abdul Rahman is an Advocate on Record at the Supreme Court of India
