NEW DELHI: Takaing serious note of the letter sent by a Allahabad High Court judge seeking explanation from railway officers over the “inconvenience” caused to him during a train journey, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on Thursday has written a letter to Chief Justices of all the high courts expressing “concern regarding the issue.”
The CJI’s letter comes against the backdrop of another letter dated July 14, issued by the Registrar in charge of the Protocol Section, wherein he sought an explanation from Railway officials, GPR staff and the pantry car manager with regards to the inconvenience caused to Justice Gautam Chaudhary during his train journey from New Delhi to Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh on July 8.
“The train was late by more than three hours. In spite of repeated intimations to the TTE, no GPR personnel were found in the coach to meet the requirements as desired by Justice Gautam Chaudhary. Further, no pantry car workers attended him for providing refreshments despite repeated calls. Moreover, when the call was made to the pantry car manager, the call was not picked up,” the letter of Registrar Protocol said.
It went on to ask the officials to give an explanation regarding the incovenience and place the same before the judge for “his kind perusal”. Remarking that there was no occasion for a high court officer to call for an explanation from the railway personnel, the CJI, in his letter, explicitly said that protocol facilities made available to judges should not be used in a manner that is liable to result in inconvenience to others or to bring public criticism of the judiciary.
“Protocol ‘facilities’ that are made available to judges should not be utilised to assert a claim to privilege that sets them apart from the society or as a manifestation of power or authority. A wise exercise of judicial authority, both on and off the Bench, is what sustains the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary and the confidence that the society has in its judges,” the letter stated.
Emphasising that a high court judge doesn’t possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnel, the CJI said the letter addressed by him to the railway officers has given justifiable disquiet both within and outside the judiciary.