By Sujit Bhar
In the structured formality of courtrooms and the solemnity of legal proceedings, a seemingly small interaction can sometimes carry the weight of great meaning. This was recently illustrated in the Supreme Court, in an incident involving Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and a young lawyer. The event, though brief and conducted in muted tones, revealed the profound significance of the relationship between judges and lawyers—particularly in how a culture of mutual respect, empathy, and encouragement can transform the experience of litigation and the future of the legal fraternity.
During a routine hearing, the CJI had just finished dictating an order when a young lawyer politely approached the bench. In a soft voice, he said: “This is the first reported judgment of my life. I had argued the matter, but my name is not there. If it is possible, could it be added?”
The request, though made respectfully, was not standard. In the highest court of the land, with its fast-paced docket and procedural rigour, such appeals could be dismissed or overlooked entirely. But what happened next revealed not just judicial magnanimity, but also a deeply human moment that will likely stay with that young lawyer—and those who witnessed it—for life.
As Justice K Vinod Chandran, also part of the bench with the CJI, smiled encouragingly, the CJI then turned to the court master and said calmly: “Take the name down.” As the young lawyer began spelling it out, the CJI added, “Do one thing. I will add your arguments too, along with your name.” He then instructed the judgment to be recalled and re-uploaded with the corrected attribution.
There was no applause, no overt reaction—but every person in the courtroom understood the significance of what had just taken place.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
In India’s legal system, the relationship between lawyers and judges is foundational to the administration of justice. It is a professional relationship—but also one built on trust, integrity, and mutual respect. While lawyers advocate for clients, judges must adjudicate with impartiality. Yet, the balance between these roles thrives not in distance, but in dignity and understanding.
This small incident, where the CJI took a moment to honour the contribution of a junior member of the Bar, exemplifies the spirit of mentorship, encouragement, and inclusion that is vital for a healthy judicial ecosystem.
The legal profession is hierarchical by design. Senior lawyers and judges wield not only power, but influence, and their words and conduct often set the tone for court decorum and inter-professional dynamics. When figures like the CJI extend such gestures, they do more than act kindly—they affirm a young lawyer’s place in a demanding system.
Across the world, such moments have played an essential role in shaping the tone of courtrooms and the broader legal culture. Consider the US Supreme Court, where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was known to carefully listen to first-time advocates, sometimes even offering feedback after hearings. In the UK, Lord Denning, one of the most respected judges of the 20th century, was known to patiently hear junior barristers, giving them space to find their voice in the courtroom. These gestures are not just acts of benevolence—they are acts of leadership.
THE RIPPLE EFFECTS
When junior lawyers see that their voices matter, they are emboldened to work harder, think deeper, and argue better. A supportive judge does not compromise the objectivity of the judiciary; rather, they uplift the standards of advocacy. Such an environment ensures that lawyers—regardless of seniority—feel that their efforts are recognized.
In a court where deference to seniority often overshadows merit, CJI Gavai’s response sent a message: The legal system sees you. Your work counts.
This recognition builds trust. And trust, in turn, builds a stronger legal fraternity. It encourages younger lawyers to pursue justice without fear, to engage with the system more sincerely, and to remain in the profession despite its many challenges.
The adversarial nature of court proceedings can often be mistaken for animosity. But good litigation requires a fair contest—one where both sides are heard fully, and both lawyers and judges uphold their roles with mutual respect.
When lawyers trust that judges will hear them, they are more likely to present their arguments honestly and with intellectual rigour. Judges, in turn, benefit from better-reasoned submissions, making adjudication more thorough and balanced. This synergy improves the quality of justice delivered.
In this context, a respectful judge-lawyer relationship is not just idealistic—it is functional. It produces better legal outcomes, ensures fair representation, and builds the long-term credibility of the justice system.
However, this relationship is not without its strains. In India, the pressures of pendency, hierarchical barriers, and courtroom politics can sometimes fray the delicate bond between Bar and Bench. Instances of impatience, disregard for juniors, or dismissive attitudes—though not the norm—can have a chilling effect.
It is in this climate that the incident involving CJI Gavai stands out so vividly. It reminds us that every judge, especially at the highest levels, has the power to shape not just the case before them, but the entire culture of the courtroom.
THE LESSONS INCORPORATED
There are valuable takeaways for both judges and lawyers:
For judges: Small acts of recognition, empathy, and patience can create an inclusive courtroom culture where young advocates feel valued and heard. This is vital in a country where many young lawyers come from non-privileged backgrounds and struggle to find mentors.
For lawyers: Respect for the court and the judicial process must be upheld at all times, but respectful engagement does not mean passivity. As the young lawyer demonstrated, it is possible to make one’s voice heard with grace and dignity.
For legal institutions: Encouraging a dialogue between the Bench and the Bar—through mentorship programmes, workshops, and court-administered initiatives—can bridge gaps and build mutual understanding.
The Supreme Court, in that brief interaction, gave the legal community a glimpse of what the future can look like when respect is not bound by hierarchy, and encouragement is not limited to chambers.
It was a moment where the might of the judiciary bent not to power or pressure, but to the soft-spoken courage of a young lawyer asking only for his name to be remembered. Instead, he received not just recognition, but validation—and perhaps, the confidence to continue a career that will one day shape the law for others.
And so, the lawyer-judge relationship in India, when nurtured with fresh respect and understanding, becomes more than a professional necessity. It becomes the heart of a justice system that inspires, uplifts, and sustains.
In a world that often rushes past such details, one should remember that the quietest moments sometimes leave the loudest echoes.