‘Mutual respect among judges is essential’:Kerala HC says they may differ in their rulings, but no judge is superior to another

The Kerala High Court has said that judges may hold differing views on questions of law, but mutual respect and restraint are essential in their interactions. Judges may have different opinions, but none is superior to another. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji said that all High Court judges hold equal status. No bench should claim institutional superiority over another bench. According to a court press release issued in Kochi on 26 October, the bench made these observations in its 15 October judgment on an appeal filed by an employee of the Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank. The court directed the Labour Court to reconsider, within two months, an application seeking an extension of the time limit for disciplinary action. ‘Peer restraint’ described as the basis of judicial discipline The Division Bench described “peer restraint” as a fundamental part of judicial discipline. The court said that all judges hold equal status and that no bench is institutionally superior to another. Citing a recent Supreme Court judgment, the bench said that the strength of the judiciary “comes from discipline, not dominance”. The court said that peer restraint is not limited to the doctrine of binding precedents. It also encompasses judicial courtesy, mutual respect and harmony between benches. According to the court, these principles are essential for maintaining consistency and confidence in judicial decisions. The division bench said, “No bench—whether larger in strength or not—can advise, direct or criticise another bench or its members in a supervisory capacity on how they should work, how they should conduct themselves, or what they should say and record.” Reversing a decision on appeal does not confer a right of superiority The court said that an appellate division bench may disagree with the findings of a single judge. It may also set aside or modify the decision if there are valid grounds. However, the power to correct a judicial decision does not confer superiority over the judge who delivered it. The judges explained that both a single judge and a division bench exercise the jurisdiction of the same High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. An intra-court appeal provides an opportunity for additional judicial scrutiny of a decision. It does not make the single judge subordinate to the appellate bench. The court also reminded that the office of the Chief Justice is that of primus inter pares, or first among equals. Case involved an employee of Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank These observations came while hearing an appeal filed by an employee of Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank. The employee had challenged a Labour Court order extending the time limit for disciplinary action. In the previous hearing of the case, a division bench had remanded it for consideration of a specific issue. Subsequently, the single judge had said that a division bench does not ordinarily remand a case to a single judge for reconsideration. The division bench agreed with this general principle. However, it clarified that a case may be remanded if an essential issue has not been considered. If an issue has already been decided on its merits, the appellate bench should ordinarily decide the appeal itself. The court said that remanding an undecided issue gives the parties an opportunity to be heard on it at both levels of the intra-court process. Direction to Reconsider Labour Court Order On the original dispute, the division bench upheld the Labour Court’s power. The court held that the Labour Court can extend the time limit for disciplinary proceedings. However, the bench found that the reason for the bank’s delay and the employee’s objections had not been adequately assessed when the deadline was extended. Allowing the appeal, the High Court quashed the order extending the deadline. The court directed the Labour Court to reconsider the application within two months. The 15 October judgment sets out an important principle for High Courts across the country. Appellate power can correct judicial decisions, but mutual respect and restraint preserve the fraternity of judges who exercise this power together.