We use words “Judge” and “Justice” while addressing judges of trial courts and constitutional courts respectively. Many of us do not know the exact reason for addressing them as such. Judges of Constitutional Courts are addressed with a prefix ‘Justice’ even after their retirement.
During the birth centenary celebrations of former Chief Justice D.M. Chandrashekar on 26 September 2020 organised by Basava Samithi, Shri. Shivarudra Swamiji of Belimutt, Bangalore gave a new and beautiful dimension to this prefix ‘Justice’.
“Judges who discharge their duties in trial courts are often constrained by legislation, rules and precedents of higher courts. They decide lis between parties. However, a Constitutional Court Judge travels beyond these shackles to do complete justice to parties. The vision and aim of Constitutional Court Judge is to do justice no matter what. This is why they are called ‘Justice’. They are not bound by constraints. They are the very embodiment of the concept of Justice. This noble work undertaken by them does not stop with their retirement. They continue to do justice in all walks of life by enlightening the general public and bringing changes in society. The oath they take at the time of their appointment continues till they meet their Creator. In this way, they are Justices for life. This is why we call them ‘Justice’” even after their retirement” – Swamiji said.
The article “The History, Meaning and Use of the Words Justice and Judge” by Jason Boatright, published in St. Mary’s Law Journal explains the terms Judge and Justice as follows.
“The words justice and judge have similar meanings because they have a common ancestry. They are derived from the same Latin term, jus, which is defined in dictionaries as “right” and “law.” However, those definitions of jus are so broad that they obscure the details of what the term meant when it formed the words that eventually became justice and judge. The etymology of jus reveals the kind of right and law it signified was related to the concepts of restriction and obligation. Vestiges of this sense of jus survived in the meaning of justice and judge.
Although justice and judge have similar meanings rooted in a shared ancestry, they are not quite the same. There are two reasons for this. First, they are constructed from the addition of different Latin suffixes to jus, and those suffixes had different meanings. Second, justice and judge entered the English language at different times; people began to use the word justice when England’s legal system was different from how it was when they started to use judge. Centuries ago, these two facts combined to make justice refer to one who embodies the law and judge to mean one who speaks the law.
There are more similarities than differences between the words justice and judge, but the differences are important. For example, justices may insist they are not judges, and judges sometimes correct people who call them justices. These distinctions can be difficult to keep straight. Trial and intermediate appellate court judges in most states and in the federal judicial system are called judges, while those on the highest courts are justices. But that is not the case in New York, where some trial judges are known as justices, or in Texas, where intermediate appellate judges are called justices, and some of the highest court judges are judges.
The similarities and differences between justices and judges are not just matters of title or courtesy, they are also important matters of law. A justice of a final court of appeal might make new law through a judicial decision, while another justice might consider this an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power.”
Though the above explanation sounds logical, Swamiji’s explanation gives a new dimension imposing a larger social responsibility on the Constitutional Court Judges during and after their tenure. They continue to be torchbearers. If we look at the lives of Justice D.M. Chandrashekar and Justice Billappa of Karnataka High Court after their retirement, it is not very difficult to perceive the words of Swamiji in the right perspective.
S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal – raj@dakshalegal.com
Daksha Legal 