Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath has emphasised that judicial impartiality must not be confused with detachment, observing that judges must remain sensitive to the human circumstances and consequences underlying every legal dispute.
Justice Nath made the observations while delivering the second Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on the theme “Judging with Compassion: Human Understanding in the Practice of Law.” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant inaugurated the event. Justice Nath is also the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
The Supreme Court judge underlined that compassion in adjudication does not amount to favouring a litigant, relaxing legal standards or allowing emotion to displace evidence.
According to Justice Nath, compassion requires a judge to understand the circumstances in which a dispute emerges while remaining firmly anchored to the law.
He drew a distinction between impartiality and indifference, using the symbolism of Lady Justice to explain that judicial neutrality does not require a court to become oblivious to the realities faced by those appearing before it.
“A judge must be impartial but never indifferent,” Justice Nath said.
Justice Nath cautioned that the application of legal rules should not cause courts to lose sight of the individuals affected by judicial proceedings. He said the first responsibility of compassionate adjudication was to ensure that legal abstractions do not eclipse the lived realities of those involved in litigation.
He pointed to the difference between formal equality and equality as actually experienced. Referring to two undertrial prisoners who may be granted bail on identical conditions, he noted that one could secure release while the other might remain incarcerated because he was unable to furnish the necessary surety.
The example, he said, demonstrated that equal treatment in legal terms may not always translate into equal outcomes in real life.
Justice Nath also drew attention to the experience of individuals navigating the justice system. He observed that for a survivor required to revisit traumatic experiences during testimony, or for a litigant unable to understand the language in which proceedings are conducted, the judicial process itself becomes the tangible experience of justice.
He questioned whether the procedures of the justice system, in some cases, could themselves become a source of trauma.
Addressing cases involving survivors of sexual violence and child witnesses, Justice Nath stressed that adopting a trauma-sensitive approach does not mean compromising judicial rigour.
He explained that a courtroom sensitive to trauma should not be regarded as a less rigorous forum. Compassion, he suggested, does not determine which party should prevail; rather, it requires the court to understand the implications of the outcome for everyone affected by the proceedings.
Justice Nath further warned against allowing public opinion to influence judicial assessment, particularly in an era when matters are frequently subjected to intense media scrutiny before courts pronounce upon them.
He said a compassionate court cannot become aligned with either side of a dispute. Instead, it must retain the ability to understand the circumstances of all parties without allowing sympathy or public sentiment to compromise adjudicatory neutrality.
The address also underscored the broader responsibility of courts to ensure that justice is not merely correct in its legal formulation but meaningful in its impact on those who seek it.
Justice Nath’s remarks placed human understanding alongside legal discipline as an essential component of judging, reinforcing the idea that judicial compassion is not an exception to the rule of law but a means of ensuring that the law remains responsive to the realities of those subject to it.
The post Judge must remain impartial, but can’t be indifferent to human realities: Justice Vikram Nath appeared first on India Legal.