The Uncomfortable Question: Are Judges Accountable If A Verdict Ends Up Leading To A Tragedy?

Meenakshi (65), Selvi (30), Sanjay (3) and Sandhya (10) died in sleep for no fault of theirs in a tragic fire accident on 8 May. The fire broke out on the first floor of a building in Vadapalani, which was built in 1992 and reconstructed in 2004 with two additional, supposedly ‘unauthorised’, floors. Six others suffered severe burn injuries.

It was reported that the fire sparked up from a junction box and spread to two-wheelers parked in the compound, and in the billowing smoke, the sleeping innocents met with their maker. Chennai Corporation claims that the building was sealed in September 2016 for rule violations and it was being used deviously through a ‘back door entry’. Unconfirmed reports also said the landlord may have been enjoying the benefits of an interim stay order of the ‘sealing’.

Even as the embers from the said fire were yet to subside, we saw a breakout of fire in the Chennai Silks building on 30 May in T Nagar. The loss of property is estimated to be in the vicinity of Rs 200 crore, but thankfully no lives were lost in the incident.

Be that as it may, news reports suggest that the building which housed the textile or jewellery showroom may not have had the mandatory Completion Certificate, and had been built up to eight floors as against the authorised ground floor and four additional floors. Also, there is no clarity yet on whether the owners had the benefit of the orders of interim stay to continue to occupy the building and run the business despite alleged violations.

In the face of such occurrences, here’s a pertinent question – even as the executive branch comes under the scanner for accountability, what of possible accountability of judges who may have granted interim orders, enabling the occupation of such premises? Can the judges be hauled up for their orders which may have tragically ‘contributed’ to the occurrences?

Questions have come from responsible bureaucratic quarters that while their brethren find themselves first in the dock, members of the judicial class seem to be immune in such circumstances. Why is that?

Superficially, it may seem like judicial officers – by stretched logic – could also be held answerable. Reality proves otherwise. As per the Judicial Officers’ Protection Act, 1850, read with Judges’ Protection Act, 1985, if an act done or ordered to be done by a judicial officer in the discharge of his judicial duties is within the limits of his jurisdiction, he is protected whether or not he has discharged those duties erroneously, irregularly or even illegally, or without believing in good faith that he had the jurisdiction to do the act about which there is a complaint.

When the judiciary acts as the duly authorised societal agent of the state, it acts as the representative of the sovereign, namely, the people. The power to adjudicate, determine, apply the laws and deliver the verdict is essentially the power of the Republic, being exercised through the judicial limb of the state and made available through the courts. Maintaining the independence of the judiciary in larger public interest, which overrides the public law rights of individual citizens, an action for compensation against a judicial officer for issuing an erroneous order is also opposed to public interest (Sujanapal v State of Kerala).

The immunity afforded to the judges is in ‘public interest’. So, the public cannot sue a judge for granting an interim order which led to, in our case, the ‘legal occupation’ of an ‘unauthorised’ structure, which in turn led to the incidents impacting life and public property. The only caveat being that if the judge was seen to have exercised his ‘jurisdiction’ for ulterior purposes and the act was tainted by corruption. In that case, he would not escape the clutches of disciplinary action. Of course, a High Court or Supreme Court judge can only be ‘impeached’. Yet, the public at large may still have no right to sue the judge seeking compensation or incarceration. No wonder the law-abiding citizen is not convinced about the way law operates in the country. But that, dear reader, is for a larger purpose?