Former judges, judicial honorifics and ethics

As a matter of judicial discipline, all judges should be explicitly barred from using judicial honorifics after retirement. This includes the use of words 'former Justice' or 'retired Justice' or 'Hon'ble' in court documents and in oral hearings.

—–

FORMER high court judges can and do return to law practice in the Supreme Court, or other high courts after retirement. An ordinary litigant in the court, who is up against an opponent represented by a former high court judge, may feel apprehensive about both the process of adjudication as well as the final outcome of the case. Likewise, a judge-now-advocate could profit from the prestige of a former judicial office to derive an unfair advantage in the legal marketplace. These issues go to the very root of independence of higher judiciary but we seldom talk about it.

Article 220 of the Constitution states: "No person who has held office as a permanent judge of a high court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the other high courts." The Bar Council of India Rules state that "any person who has held office as a judge of any high court in India may on retirement be admitted as an advocate on the rolls of any state council where he is eligible to practise."

The Constitution requires high court judges to take an oath at the time of assuming office: high court judges must perform their constitutional functions without any fear or favour. However, there is nothing in the law to guide the conduct of former judges of the high courts after they leave the Bench. Former high court judges are not bound by judicial discipline or any self-imposed code of conduct that otherwise binds them as sitting judges. Besides, the Bar Council of India Rules state that an advocate's "signboard" or "nameplate" should not "indicate" that they have been a judge. I would think that this extends to letterheads, business cards and email signatures. But it stops there.