In a thought-provoking piece for LiveLaw, Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh shines a light on an uncomfortable reality within the Indian legal system: the prevalence of judicial misbehaviour. While much is said about the ethics of the Bar, the responsibility to maintain courtroom dignity is a two-way street. The article argues that the time has come to move beyond unwritten rules of conduct and establish a clear, enforceable framework to hold the judiciary accountable for intemperate behavior.

Misbehaviour in the courtroom often manifests in subtle yet damaging ways. From threatening lawyers with escalating costs—likened by the author to an "auctioneer calling out bids"—to the public humiliation of junior advocates, these actions erode the "spirit of encouragement" necessary for a healthy legal ecosystem. The bench, Dinesh notes, has a solemn duty to nurture integrity and duty, ensuring that every lawyer feels respected as an officer of the court.

The article highlights a "clinical" aspect to this issue: power dynamics. When lawyers are elevated to the Bench, the sudden acquisition of authority can sometimes alter their temperament. This shift often leads to impatience or anger, which can stifle valid legal submissions. The author stresses that courtroom decorum is not just about politeness; it is a functional requirement for the delivery of justice. A lawyer who is bullied into silence cannot effectively represent their client.

One of the most significant points raised is the lack of a safe reporting mechanism. Even seasoned advocates often hesitate to name specific "bullies" in the judiciary due to the fear of professional retribution. This silence allows toxic behavior to persist across all levels of the judiciary, from Magistrates to the higher courts. Without a way to report these incidents without fear, the cycle of intimidation remains unbroken.

Technology, however, is beginning to change the landscape. With the rise of online hearings and digital footprints, courtroom interactions are now being recorded and scrutinized more than ever before. This digital transparency provides a unique opportunity to examine "who is at fault" during heated confrontations. It serves as an objective record that can deter intemperate behavior from both the Bench and the Bar.

The diversity of the Indian Bar is another factor the judiciary must respect. Advocates come from vastly different backgrounds—from elite law schools to humble "thatched-shed" beginnings. A judge's role is to act with compassion toward this diverse spectrum, recognizing that different behavioral patterns do not equate to a lack of professional integrity. Inclusivity in the courtroom starts with the judge’s temperament.

Ultimately, the article calls for a formal "Code of Judicial Conduct." This would replace vague traditions with concrete standards and provide a structured path for addressing grievances. As the legal profession evolves, the "two wheels of the chariot of justice"—the Bar and the Bench—must move in harmony. This can only happen when the Bench leads by example, treating every advocate with the dignity their office deserves.

In conclusion, addressing judicial misbehaviour is not an attack on the institution, but a step toward strengthening it. By fostering a "frictionless relationship" between judges and lawyers, the judiciary can restore public faith in the system. It is a reminder that while judges pass orders, their legacy is often defined by the respect and patience they show to those who stand before them.