01/08/2026
Rendering Judgment Without Hearing the Public Prosecutor’s Arguments – A Serious Question Facing Judicial Impartiality
Author: Adv. Vikee Vaman Yelve
The Preamble to the Constitution of India declares India to be a Democratic Republic based on the values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The judiciary bears the supreme responsibility of safeguarding all four of these values. A court is not merely a dispute-resolution forum; it is an independent and impartial platform that protects constitutional principles. Therefore, every judge has a constitutional duty to observe total neutrality, restraint, and judicial discipline while administering justice.
However, in actual court proceedings, a serious grievance arises in certain cases: without listening to the detailed arguments of the Public Prosecutor or giving them a adequate opportunity to present their case, the order records that "the argument of the State/Prosecution was heard," and the court itself proceeds to write the judgment by supplying additional reasons on behalf of the State. Such a procedure raises grave questions regarding judicial impartiality.
It is not the duty of a judge to act as an advocate for any party. A judge is neither a representative of the complainant, nor the accused, nor the government. A judge is a constitutional authority whose sole role is to deliver an impartial decision based on the law, evidence, and arguments presented by both sides. If the court itself creates the impression of adopting the role of one of the parties, it risks eroding public trust in the administration of justice.
Among the principles of natural justice, the rule of Audi Alteram Partem is globally recognized. Under this principle, every party must receive an effective and meaningful opportunity to be heard. This opportunity must be genuine, not merely a formal formality. It is not enough for the court simply to record that it heard a party’s arguments; the consideration of those arguments must also be reflected in the final decision.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and protection against arbitrariness. Under Article 21, a fair, reasonable, and impartial procedure is considered an integral component of the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has clarified in numerous judgments that a fair hearing is a fundamental element of Article 21.
The role of the Public Prosecutor is to assist the court on points of law and to represent the State. The role of the judge is to independently evaluate those arguments and deliver a neutral decision. If judges write decisions in a manner that creates the impression that they themselves are stepping into the shoes of the Public Prosecutor, the boundaries of the judicial role become blurred.
Particularly in matters like bail applications, anticipatory bail, criminal revisions, appeals, and other serious cases, courts should refrain from passing orders without fully hearing the arguments of both sides. Otherwise, it raises the issue of denying a party their right to an effective hearing.
Even more concerning is that, at times, courts record points in their orders that were never raised by the Public Prosecutor. While the court has the right to independently interpret and apply the law, ensuring that its actions do not appear to construct a new argument on behalf of a party is a fundamental condition of judicial impartiality.
In the Indian legal system, judges enjoy independence; however, they are not entirely free from accountability. Judicial independence and judicial accountability are two sides of the same coin. Balancing both principles is essential to maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
If a judge repeatedly commits procedural errors of this nature, denies parties an effective hearing, or if reliable material indicates conduct contrary to the judicial code of ethics, the concerned High Court must conduct an inquiry under its administrative and constitutional powers. In serious cases, taking appropriate judicial and administrative measures is necessary to preserve faith in the judicial system.
The objective of this article is not to criticize the judiciary, but to strengthen public confidence in it. Courts are the custodians of the Constitution. Therefore, it is essential that every judge not only remain impartial, but also manifestly appear to be impartial.
A judge must never view themselves as an advocate for any party. The roles of the Public Prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the judge are distinctly separate. If the boundaries between these roles are crossed, the sanctity of the administration of justice is compromised.
Today, to preserve the prestige of the judicial system, four elements are essential: transparency, reasoned orders, effective hearings, and judicial accountability. Only when a court genuinely listens to, records, and considers both sides' arguments will the justice envisioned by the Constitution truly come to fruition.
"A judge is not an advocate for any party; they are a trustee of the Constitution. Only when the court preserves its neutrality does true respect for the judiciary in a democracy endure."
Adv. Vikee Vaman Yelve
Phone: 8898343289
