My Lord or My Lady - How do you address a lady judge?
17 07 2015
Friday
THOUGH we are not required to address the judges as "my lords", "your lordship" etc, lawyers still do and for many lawyers, the phrase "my lord" is a filler. When they don't know what to say, they say "my lord". The Chief Justice of a High Court once asked a lawyer, "Are you trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records, for the number of times the words ‘my lord' are used in a minute - I have already counted twenty."
In the CESTAT, traditionally the Members are addressed as "my lord", "your lordship" and ‘lordship', at least by the lawyers. This comes naturally to the lawyers, but others find it a little odd and so they fumble before the lords. Many lawyers call even Commissioners ‘my lords' when they appear in departmental adjudication and not many commissioners object to this, but if the commissioner appears before the CESTAT, he squirms to call his former colleague, the Technical Member ‘my lord'.Of course there are some very senior retired officers practising as advocates who would unhesitatingly address the Member (who would be twenty years his junior in the department) as ‘my lord'.
But how do you address a lady judge? This problem shouldn't have arisen now as the Tribunal had lady members right from its inception. How I regret my lapse in not asking this question to Ms. Rama Devi, one of the earliest Members of the CESTAT.
Recently in a CESTAT Bench presided over by a lady judge, a DR was addressing the Bench as Madam. The Hon'ble Member objected as it was a Bench of two judges and by no stretch of imagination can the other Member or the Bench be called Madam. Though he immediately addressed as ‘the hon'ble bench', he switched over to madam again - habits die hard. Another DR had a doubt. He stood up and asked, "what is the solution?". The Lady Member did not directly reply, but said there are many other ways of addressing the Bench.
I asked a senior advocate, whether we should call the lady judge as "my lady". He replied that it is not proper, at least in India. "But the feminine version of my lord in English is my lady", I told him. "Winning the case is more important than stupid English", he told me.
The UK Supreme Court practice directions stipulate that the Justices should be addressed as 'My Lord' or 'My Lady' as the case may be.
The first lady Chief Justice in India and perhaps the second lady judge of a High Court , Ms Leila Seth faced a similar situation. She writes in her autobiography,
In court the lawyers addressed me as My Lord, just as my brother judges. I was asked whether this was acceptable. I told them this was fine by me, as I knew they used the expression not out of any great respect, but only as a breather for their thoughts. At one time, when some lawyers had objected to the term on the grounds that it smacked of colonial and feudal times, the Supreme Court gave them permission to use the expression ‘Your Honour'. But most lawyers continued to punctuate their arguments with the words, 'My Lord' : it was just a matter of habit.
It was only when I sat with Justice T.P.S. Chawla, who was a barrister and a stickler for form that he insisted that I be addressed correctly. Justice Denning in England had issued practice directions and said that the court should be addressed as ‘My Lord' or ‘My Lady' as the case may be. Since both of us were barristers and spoke the Queen's English with a good pronunciation and were particular about decorum and integrity, we were referred to behind our backs as the English bench.
Once, when I asked a question of a lawyer in court and he started replying, ‘My Lord ...', Justice Chawla interrupted him and requested him to 'address the court correctly'. The lawyer was foxed: he had no idea what to do. When Justice Chawla repeated his refrain and later explained what was expected of him, the lawyer decided to turn his face towards Justice Chawla and answer the question as if it had emanated from him. He thought that that was the easier way out: address the Lord and forget the Lady. I think it was a very rare occasion when I was addressed as My Lady.
Though in her book Subhadra* has referred to Justice Sachar and me as ‘two of the most enlightened judges', when she appeared before us in court, she had somewhat feistily dismissed us both as male chauvinists. Justice Sachar had mildly responded that though he wasn't a male chauvinist, he could still, without offense to logic, be called one, being male, but that surely she could not refer to his sister judge as a male chauvinist. Subhadra had responded that she perceived judges as male and that in any case I was referred to as ' My Lord'.
*(Reference is to Subbhadra Butalia, the author of the book The Gift Of A Daughter)
I think Subhadra had the answer to this question. Maybe we can address the lady judges also as "my lord" - after all we called the lady President of India as Rashtrapati only.
How do you address a judge outside the court? In one of our functions, the Chief Guest was a sitting judge of a High Court. One of the guests was a Chief Commissioner. This judge, while he was a lawyer, had appeared before the Chief Commissioner (a Commissioner as he then was) and the Chief Commissioner used to address the lawyer (as he then was) by his first name. When the Chief Commissioner met the judge in our function, the first question he asked was, "should I call you my lord or by your name?". The judge said, "you can call me by my name."
The great advocate C K Daphtary called on Justice Leila Seth when she became a High Court judge. After looking her up and down, he said, "My dear, my dear, now that you have become a judge, you are expected to broaden your mind and not your hips."
A judge fell into a ditch and a lawyer picked him up. "Is your honour hurt?", asked the lawyer. "Stupid fellow, it is my leg that is hurt, not my honour.", replied the hurt judge.
More in DDT 2229
Good Counsel for Counsels
THE proper ways to address the court are Your Lordship , Your Ladyship ; My Lord , My Lady ; Yes, My Lord; No, My Lord, etc. "Sir" or "Madam", is not really welcome.
In referring to other judges, the proper reference is to "Mr. Justice x" and not "to Your Lordship's brother or colleague. A judge may call another judge my "brother" but you may not.
It is not proper to include the court in examples used for illustrating a point in argument, such as, "If Your Lordship stood charged with rape...", etc. The same applies to opposing counsel.
Outside the courthouse, or its precincts, a judge need not be addressed as "My Lord","My Lady", or "Your Lordship", etc., particularly in a loud voice in a crowded elevator! "Chief Justice", "Mr. Justice", "Madam Justice", "Judge", "Sir", or "Madam" are proper and acceptable out of court.
In informal situations, judges who call others by their first names should expect a similar response. Perhaps a good rule to follow is to call a judge by his or her first name only if you were on a first name basis before the judge's appointment, or if he or she addresses you this way.
The present generation of young lawyers is obsessed with "feelings". This is commendable in some situations but it is usually bad form in court. Feelings are great stuff for T.V. interviews but they are no help in court. Counsel should not state anything as a fact unless they are sure they are correct.
The court is entitled to accept counsel's statements about what the evidence or the law is. Thus counsel should not confidently state these matters unless he or she is sure. As in dealing with clients, counsel should beware of bold and confident assurances. Counsel should not overstate questions of law, such as "this case is on all fours" unless such is really the case.
It used to be improper to refer to opposing counsel as "my friend", the thought being that to deprive counsel of the title "learned" was a sign of disrespect.
Unfortunately, it has become quite common for counsel to engage in direct conversation with each other in court, such as (usually in mid-sentence), "You agree with such and such, don't you, Mr. Snooks?" This is quite improper. All statements in court must be made to the court. The proper question is, "Does my learned friend agree with such and such?" or, "May I inquire if my learned friend agrees", etc.
Promptness
There is no excuse for a lawyer being late for court. It is a matter of self-discipline. Judges are sometimes late, but that is usually because of something that has happened after the judge gets to the Courthouse...Be late at your peril.
It is especially annoying when counsel are late returning to court after a short adjournment. It is rude and selfish to keep everyone else waiting while counsel does whatever else he or she thinks is important.
Don't fight with the Judge (Unless it is Absolutely Necessary)
Generally speaking, we have relatively mild-mannered courts and bar. Certainly litigation is nothing like the war it used to be when fiercer judges presided in our courts. Easy familiarity, however, tends to lower standards of behaviour, and we see too much sullen resentment. For unexplained reasons, some counsel seem to take adverse rulings on evidence personally. Good lawyers are prepared to fight the best they can, but they are also prepared to lose. The lawyer who can't take an adverse ruling without obvious grief or outrage hasn't yet mastered an important part of the lawyering craft.
The only professional reaction to an adverse ruling is to carry on without any obvious reaction. It is acceptable practice to say "thank you" after any ruling or judgment whether it is favourable or otherwise. The omission of this particular civility is also not important.
Every once in a while, however, it is necessary to have it out with the judge. If he or she is interrupting too often, or helping a witness unfairly, or ridiculing you or your case or your client, then you must stand up to unfairness. This should be done firmly and respectfully, and there doesn't have to be a volcanic eruption with threats, walk-outs or petulant resentment. The air should be cleared, and the case should then go on.
"Firm and Fearless Stand" (by counsel) are cases where counsel stood up to an unreasonable judge in court, and did not withdraw.
There may come a time when a judge decides, rightly or wrongly, that a dialogue should end. The judge probably feels as badly as counsel, but the court's authority to end the colloquy must be accepted. Both parties - judge and counsel— should try to keep the case going because it is unfair to the parties not to do so.
It is wise to keep your own counsel. The judge who knocks you down today may be with you next time, and you will soon be neurotic if you take every win and every loss emotionally. Keep your cool, and remember that whatever you say about judges and other lawyers always gets back to them.
(Source: Practice Material of the Law Society of British Columbia)
Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) - DGFT makes corrective amendments
THE Director General of Foreign Trade, has notified Corrections in Public Notice 27 dated July 14, 2015 amending Table 2 [containing ITC (HS) code wise list of products with reward rates] of Appendix 3B under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme
Public Notice No. 28/2015-2020 Dated: July 15, 2015.
Customs - New Exchange Rates from Today
CBEC has notified new exchange rates for Imported Goods and for Export Goods with effect from 17th July 2015. The USD is at 64.10 rupees for imports and 63.10 rupees for exports.
Notification No.68/2015-CUS(N.T.), Dated: July 16, 2015
CBI traps Service Tax Supdt and Inspector
A Central Excise Superintendent and Inspector were trapped in Hyderabad yesterday by the CBI in a bribery case demanding Rs. 20,000 from a pharma company for registration.
In another interesting case, it is heard that the CBI has announced a cash reward of Rs 25,000 for any information that would lead to the arrest of Jaipur Assistant Commissioner of Customs who is wanted in a case of graft along with his Principal Commissioner.
Don't write on Bank Notes - RBI
IT has been brought to the notice of Reserve Bank of India that members of public and institutions write number, name or messages, etc. on the watermark window of banknotes, thus defacing the banknotes. The watermark window has an important security feature which distinguishes it from a counterfeit note. Any defacement on the window will not allow the common man to identify one of the features of a genuine note.
The RBI requests the public to refrain from doing anything that leads to defacement.
RBI Press Release 2015-2016/152., Dated July 16, 2015
Justice Katju's Writ declared as defective by Supreme Court Registry
THE last step before a case can enter the hallowed Apex Court, is passing through the Registry and even the best of litigants will falter there. Recently, Justice Markandey Katju, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court filed a writ against the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The Supreme Court registry found his writ defective. One of the defects was that "Retd." has not been mentioned with petitioner's name in cause title of W.P."
It is not known whether Justice (Retd) Markandey Katju has cured the defects.
Until Monday with more DDT
Have a nice weekend.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in
