THE JUDICIARY AND MENTAL HEALTH
Judges frequently have to make decisions that can change someone's life—and there for greater good. Ideally, they must hear both viewpoints, review them equally, and make a decision. They must maintain their objectivity and detachment from the circumstances throughout the entire process. But can a person truly act in the role of a mere judge, forgetting their social, emotional, or biological background, especially on a daily basis? Research indicates that 9 times out of 10, a person's judgments are impacted by a variety of elements, mostly their emotions and preconceptions. The judge's mental state is one of the important variables that influence decision-making.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), mental health is “a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community.” In common parlance, it includes a person’s social, psychological and emotional well-being.
A person's mental health has a significant influence on their thoughts, which in consequence affects their ability to make decisions. An individual's productivity and efficacy in daily tasks are enhanced by good mental health. It helps them make wise decisions and enables them to deal with change and hardship. Conversely, poor mental health leads to decreased productivity, social issues, abuse susceptibility, impulsive behavior, and other health issues like eating disorders. Five of the top ten causes of disability globally are mental health issues, accounting for almost one-third of all disabilities. Over the next ten years, there will likely be a rise in the prevalence of mental health disorders worldwide.
Since mental health and a profession of work are closely related, it should come as no surprise that a large proportion of doctors receive daily treatment from psychologists and therapists. The work environment has a major effect on doctors, according to systematic evaluations of medical professionals, and this has consistently led to deterioration in their capacity for patient empathy. It will be appropriate to compare a judge to a medical professional. Given that both professions deal with people, life and death, the trauma that befalls those engaged, and the significance of making decisions about people's fate.
A judge's day consists of handling cases involving divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, rape, and murder. In addition, there are the prolonged work hours and the rapidly increasing number of outstanding cases in India. This means that in order for a judge to perform their job, they need to possess patience and detachment. Judges and doctors are similar in this regard. These resources, nevertheless, might not always be sufficient to handle the overwhelming amount and complex nature of cases that judges handle. It is known as "Judicial Distress" for judges. Judicial Distress is “any condition, problem, or situation that impairs a judge’s ability to carry out his/her judicial functions or poses a challenge to the judge’s physical or emotional stability.” Judicial Distress is the ramification of a number of factors.
- Vicarious Trauma- Vicarious Trauma or Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) is "the trauma experienced by professionals in the health and justice systems who are required to watch or listen to accounts of traumatic situations, including abuse, rape, torture, and murder." It essentially involves experiencing all of the victims' agony through vicariously. Research on the impacts of STS on medical professionals, law enforcement, therapists, shelter workers, and emergency relief workers has been extensively studied. However, research on the effects of STS on judges' lives is still in its early stages. Every day, judges hear the stories of mourning families, abused children, rape victims, and torture victims. Constant exposure to STS can have a detrimental effect on an individual's quality of life. A judge's general mental health could be gravely harmed by it.
- Decision Fatigue -Decision fatigue is the “deterioration of one’s ability to make good decisions after a long session of decision making.” No matter how intelligent and reasonable a person is, making decision after decision comes with a biological cost. When someone is physically tired, they are aware of it, but decision fatigue is more difficult to identify since it is harder to recognize when someone is "low on mental energy." The next decision a person makes is more difficult for their brain to make after each previous one. A judge must, first and foremost, make several choices each day. Judges are tired from the mental strain of determining case after case, regardless of the merits of each one individually. Furthermore, a judge is conscious of how his or her rulings affect people's lives. This adds pressure to be impartial and fair and take “the right decisions”.
- Based on the timing of the decisions, a parole board's decisions were found to follow a pattern. The "probability of being paroled fluctuated wildly throughout the day," despite the fact that judges granted parole in around one-third of the instances. The inmates who showed up early in the day had a better chance of being granted release. Although the judge in this case had nothing to be jealous about, this may be related to decision fatigue. Justice S. Muralidhar in his farewell speech at Delhi High Court addressed this issue by saying “Judging is, without question, not an easy task. It involves a daily onslaught of negative emotions brought to the court by anxious, and often frustrated, litigants seeking justice. It is possible that many of the physical ailments of judges are on account of having to withstand the negative energies. Maintaining equanimity and calm through the day, case after case, is indeed a big challenge.”
- Pressure - A judge is subject to several forms of pressure. The pressure to be impartial, fair, and to render the "right decision" is something that judges must constantly contend with in their line of work. In any event, there is always going to be a minimum of one disgruntled party. Furthermore, the public constantly watches judges, particularly in high-profile cases. Most of the time, public discontent results in decisions being criticised. This is due to the fact that judges must base their decisions on constitutional morality, which is not always the same as societal morality. Furthermore, when politicians, gangsters, and other powerful individuals get involved, a judge's safety is in jeopardy. One such example is the case of Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. Central Bureau of Investigation. In this case, the judge giving the ruling had to be flown to the court in a helicopter and was given a Z+ security cover because of threats to his life by the accused followers. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud revealed that he received vile threats after his opinion in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala (Sabarimala) judgment, which allowed the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple, which was earlier denied. Justice Chandrachud stated “After the judgment, my interns, my law clerks told me: Listen, I hope you are not on social media. I said I’m not – except the WhatsApp messages I get from family and friends. And they said, ‘Please don’t. It’s scary. The amount of vile threats, abuse which you have received, it is scary’. They said we haven’t slept because we fear for the safety of the judges.” This risk to the safety and security of the judge and his or her family adds to the pressure as well.
THE WAY FORWARD
Judges' capacity to perform their duties competently is impacted by judicial distress. A judge's unstable mental state can have detrimental effects on the public's trust in the judiciary as well as all parties involved in the legal system. This must be considered, and steps must be taken to avoid or minimise judicial distress. Establishing a mandatory counselling centre with licensed therapists and counsellors in courts is one of the actions that can be implemented. In addition, assistance can be given to litigants and other parties in addition to the judges. For example, the Bombay High Court opened the first-ever counselling clinic within the court's premises. The project – called Sukoon – is collaboration between the School of Human Ecology, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and the Mariwala Health Initiative (MHI). By assessing mental healthcare within the system and providing free counselling services, it seeks to support the court's proceedings. Increasing the number of judges in the nation is also necessary to reduce the strain and responsibility placed on a single judge. This could relieve the suffering of the other legal system stakeholders as well as the distress that judges experience on a daily basis.
CONCLUSION
The parties to a Supreme Court decision are not the only ones affected by it. It impacts every other individual in a similar situation who will appear in court the next time because of the consequence of precedent. For this reason, a judge cannot afford to allow her mental state to interfere with the administration of justice. The persons who foster public trust in the nation's legal system are judges. However judges are also humans, and as such, a variety of circumstances, including their mental health, affect them when they make decisions. In order to take action to control judicial distress before it does significant harm to the nation's court system, it is crucial that we recognize and comprehend the idea. For the judiciary to remain healthy, institutional measures and issues pertaining to judges' mental health are essential.