This view — judicially approved — has been acted on by judges in the past, who have been trend-setters, in recent times by the former chief justice of Calcutta, and even in earlier times by other distinguished judges.

A former chief justice of Bombay, Chittatosh Mookerjee, in 1989 refused to give any work to four named judges of the Bombay High Court on a complaint made of wrong-doing by about 200 advocates. The concerned judges complained to their chief justice that they were badly treated on the basis of mere suspicion: but the chief retorted that judges who have powers of life and death over citizens must be above suspicion: proof beyond reasonable doubt was law for citizens, not for judges. Chief Justice Chittatosh told them that if they thought his order refusing to allot them work was unfair or unjust, they should move the high court on the judicial side to have the order set aside. Not one of the four filed any writ petition, neither in the high court, nor in the Supreme Court. These judges continued to draw their salaries as judges till they reached superannuation (one of them resigned) but no work was allotted to those who remained.

The other case is that of former chief justice of India, Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji. He rose inches in stature in the eyes of the Bar when he passed an order in open court (on July 20, 1990) saying publicly why he had ordered that no work would be given to a particular judge of the Supreme Court till his name was cleared. This “order” (which is not a judgment) is a fine instance of judicial statesmanship. It is worth reading: reported only in the journal section of Scale (Vol 2, 1990).

... contd.