The Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has written a letter to all the Chief Justices of High Courts after taking an exception to the incident where an Allahabad High Court judge sought explanation about the inconveniences he faced during a train journey.In the letter, the Chief Justice said that the incident has caused a justifiable disquiet both within and outside the judiciary, and requested his High Court colleagues to not use the protocol facilities for the judges in a manner that will bring public criticism of the judiciary.CJI DY Chandrachud referred to the incident on Tuesday where the Allahabad High Court Registrar demanded an explanation from the regional railway manager after Justice Gautam Chowdhary suffered various inconveniences during a train journey.Lordship appears 7 times in this notice marked Urgent on inconvenience caused to a judge during a train journey. Why is it urgent Why so much entitlement Why such colonial language These are tyrants masquerading as Justices pic.twitter.com/kvgpKA1KvF— Ram (@ramprasad_c) July 18, 2023According to the Registrars letter to the General Manager, the Justice was travelling from New Delhi to Prayagraj the train was late by more than three hours and despite repeated requests from the justice, no GRP personnel were found in the coach.Further, the complaint says, no Pantry Car workers attended His Lordship for providing refreshments despite repeated calls.Embarrassment to High Court: Chief Justice in letter on train inconvenience incidentA HC judge does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnelCJI DY Chandrachud has taken cognizance of Allahabad HC judge calling for an explanation from the erring railway officials for the inconvenience caused to him during his train journey on July 8. pic.twitter.com/xaRYTRfQEP— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) July 20, 2023In the letter, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud quoted the incident and redacted the identities “to prevent further embarrassment to the High Court…”In the letter, the CJI said, “A Judge of the High Court does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over railway personnel. Hence, there was no occasion for an officer of the High Court for an explanation from the railway personnel to be placed before His Lordship for kind perusal. Evidently, the officer of the High Court in the above communication was carrying out a direction of the Judge of the High Court in this instance…“Protocol facilities which are made available to Judges should not be utilised to assert a claim to privilege which sets them apart from 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: which society has in its Judges.“I am writing this to all the Chief Justices of the High Courts with an earnest request to share my concerns with all colleagues across the High Courts. Self reflection and counselling within the judiciary is necessary. Protocol facilities which are 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.”
