Human Element in the Administration of Justice
" Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with Justice. And, Justice to be dispensed is not palmetre Justice or idiosyncratic justice.”
Administration of Justice:- The importance of judiciary in political construction wrote Henry Sedgwick in his ‘Elements of Politics’, is rather profound than prominent. Judiciary is the very important organ of the government. It administers justice which is considered to be an essential function of the state. The function of the judiciary is to perfect and enforce the rights of the individuals and to punish wrong doers. This function is called ‘The Administration of Justice’. The term justice does not mean justice in the abstract sense as a moral virtue or ideal but it means justice according to law. The phrase ‘ Justice according to Law’ that the decision of the courts with respect to disputes should be based on legal principles and the judge should apply established rules and principles of law in the Administration of Justice. Administration of Justice is an art which finds expression through the medium of laws. Law defines and determines the rights and relationship of men and serves as a vehicle of expression for the inner experience of justice which otherwise have remained and abstruse idea. Justice Krishna Iyer rightly remarked that:-
" Law in print is not justice in the life until each man receives what is justly due to him.” 
Thus we can say that to adjudicate the rights and duties of the individuals on the basis of rules lay down by the steps is administration of justice. It is the firmest pillar of the Government. Judges are required to give their decision according to the predetermination legal principles and they can not go beyond them. Law is not for the convenience of the judges or for any particular individuals. Law is already laid down and judges have to act accordingly. It is in this way that impartiality is secured in the administration of justice. In the words of ‘ Chief Justice Coke’
" The wisdom of law is wiser than any man’s wisdom”
According to C.K. Allen, law is the instrument of justice and basis purpose of law I the quest for justice which is to be administered without passion as
" When passion comes t the door, Justice flies out of the window.”
In modern times, what is given by the courts to the people is o twat can really called justice but merely justice according to law. Judges are not legislatures and it is not their duty to correct the defective provision. Their only function is to administer the law of the country. Law may be blind and, therefore, justice become blind, but there is no help for it. It is rightly said that in the modern step, the administration of justice according to law is commonly taken to imply recognition of fixed rules.
Impartiality of the Judge:- Impartiality of the judge is his primary attribute. It is also the basis concept of administration of justice, there is no justice if the judge is not impartial. This idea has been given constitutional shape by the judicial oath prescribed for the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court according to which a judge has to perform his duties " Without fear of favour, affection or ill-will”. Mr. Mustaq Ahmad, Ex- judge, Allahabad High Court, in his article " Moral of Judicial pronouncement opened that judge is inspired to speak out his thoughts in given detachment from all artificial calculations. His minds works out in the open, not behind a screen. He is fearless in his words and explicit in his orders. A person acting a judge has to get rid of all subjectivity, emotions , affection and sentiments while occupying the hallowed seat of justice. The public experts a super man in him but while this expectation may be may be exaggerated he is nonetheless thought to be the embodiment of the highest standards of behavior, morality and the residuary virtues.
Human Element:- Every single judge has a distinct approaches or a philosophy of his own which influences his judgment. Chief Justice, Hidayadullah while dealing with the philosophy of a judge observed as under:
" Every judge…… has a distinct stream of tendency in him. Since he sees things with his own eyes, and then works on his mind all those imponderable influences built around himself in life’s experience. He may not be aware of the influences but they are…. The tendencies of judges are as varied as colures of an artist. There are also various approaches and methods by for vicing legal problems. One judge may be influenced by one’s approach more than another. In the long run, the guarantee of justice depends upon the personality of the judge. Here the judge’s personality is his upbringing, his outlook, everything that wants to make of him a man. It is time that judges are also human beings. Having a good regard to human psychology, it is not possible for any judge to be wholly objective. His upbringing, environment and socio economic philosophy shape his thinking and unknowingly influences his approach to particular situations in the conduct of his judicial functions. With this background of the human aspect involved in the administration of justice, let us quote one example in which one of the pursue judge of the Allahabad High Court took decision involving some relaxation of impartiality. Let us now quote the occurrence. During the early days of the Allahabad High Court, one of the pursue judges was Justice William Tyrrel (1881-1894). He had a favourite jamadar peon, a fine old man whose nephew had been sentenced to imprisonment on a criminal charge. Mr. Durga Charan Bannerji, a famous counsel field a revision against the sentence, and the case was heard by justice Tyrrel who upheld the sentence.
This happened during the pre-lunch sitting where Bannnerji informed the jamadar of adverse decision, he began to weep and urged counsel to do something to save his nephew. Mr. Bannerji told him that he could not do anything but speak to the judge if he liked. Shortly afterwards, there was the lunch interval when according to custom, the jamadar followed the judge in to his chamber to assist him to disrobe. Having done that, the old man began to cry whereupon the surprised judge asked him the reason.
‘ I am ruined, I am ruined’, repeated the weeping jamadar.
Justice Tyrrel- how?
Jamadar – My nephew has been sentenced to prison.
Justice Tyrrel – By whom? When?
Jamadar – By you. This morning.
The judge: why did you not speak to me before, you owl?
Coming to the court after lunch the learned judge asked the advocates to re-argue the case. That being done, Justice Tyrrel re-called his earlier judgments and acquitted the accused since the judgment had been dictated but had not been signed and sealed, there was thus no legal difficulty to substitute it by a fresh judgment. This account was heard by Dr. Katyu from Mr. Durga Charan Bennerji. In opening the narrative of this case in his Theories. Dr. Katyu characterized it as an " Interesting episode of human interest.” Then in closing the account he observes " that is how justice is sometimes tempered with mercy.”
Prejudices which are a kind of social attitude held by a judge play functional role in his decision. For example, when a high caste person acting as a judge finds a defendant belonging to low caste, his prejudice against low caste people may restrict him from taking an objective and truthful judgment. I do believe that to a large extent a judge must be isolated. But I refuse to believe that a judge Must so cut himself off from society that he should not know what is happing around him and to quote, Mr. Justice Holmes, a very great American judge, a judge should always be conscious of that "the felt necessities of time.” What are the felt necessities of our time? We want to remove social and economic inequality; we wish to progress , we wish to reform ;we wish to make our country a good country. I feel a judge would be unworthy of being a judge if, sitting on the bench , he is not conscious of these felt necessities of our time. A judge should be a realist and a practical man. His approach in judicial creativity should be practical and pragmatic. He is aware with the current winds and cross- currents of social life. The judgment in M.C.Mehta V. Union of India  offers an excellent example of the sensitivity of the judiciary in India to the changing needs where the Supreme Court venture to derecognize exceptions to the rule of strict liability laid down by no Rayland’s V. Fletcher and made the principle absolute.
The court observed:
" Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic development taking place ion the country. As new situation arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law can not effort to remain static.” In an area where legislature is not coming froth with the required legislation, judge can modify and after the existing rules and even invent new principles to suit the changed conditions. In 1975 for the first time, Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer propounded the law that for the cause of public in general, the principle of ‘Locus Standi’ should be liberally interpreted. The concept of public interest litigation has been evolved by the judiciary which has made it possible for the common people to come before the courts and enforce their basic human rights. Through public interest litigation, the judiciary has argument its moral base and acquired with the people.
The importance of the role of the human element in judicial process can be well reflected by some important and landmark judgment propounded by the Supreme Court. Some of them mentioned under:
In judge’s case the Supreme Court extended the theory of ‘Locus Standi’ and permitted any number of the public to bring a petition before the courts for a person or clans of persons who by reason of their poverty, disability or other socially and economically disadvantageous position can not approach the courts for judicial redness. In Hussianara Khatoon case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the contends of Art. 21 of the constitution and held that it is the constitution and held that it is the constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of poverty or indigence be provided a lawyer and other legal aid by state. In this way, we can say that through the process of creative interpretation the judiciary has developed new human rights jurisprudence. Truly speaking , the judicial activism went to the extend of ignoring or rather breaking the barriers of procedural technicalities. The apex court disproved the feeling that "Judges live in the Ivory Towers.”
Conclusion:- Man is made of flesh and blood and they do not work mechanically. In order to put forth their best, they have to be motivated and inspired. Their behavior in work environment is influenced by many external and internal factors. Judges are also human beings. It is not possible for ay judge to be wholly objective. His upbringing, outlook, environment and socio economic philosophy influence his approach to a particular situation. A judge should be aware with the felt necessities to keep pace with to remain static. It has of necessities to keep pace with progress of society and judges are under an obligation to evolve new techniques or adopt old techniques to meet the new conditions and concepts. A judge should be able to interpret the laws in such manner that it copes up with the ever changing pattern of life’s requirements.
In the words of justice Krishna Iyer:
" Justice should part with jurisprudence when law quarrels with life.”
Thus, we can say that human element play an important part in administration of justice. We can conclude that judges can not dwell in ivory towers or confine their process of thinking in same hermetically sealed chambers of purely legal logic. But he can and must respond to the felt necessities of time.
٭ Ramesh Kumar V. Ram Kumar and others,(1984)2 Cr.L cases 219 Justice O.Chinnnappa Reddy
 Dr. R.G. Chatruvedi, Natural and Soil Justice, P.7[1975(Ed)]
 V.R. Krishna Iyer, Judicial Justice; A New Focus towards social justice, P-8(1985 Ed)
 C.K. Allen, Aspects of justice,P-34 (1975 Ed)
 Item IV and VII respectively in the Third schedule to the Constitution.
 In High Court Centenary, Volt I, P- 475
 M.H. Hidayadullah, A judge’s miscellary, P- 67(1972 Ed)
 Dr. K.N.Katju, the days I remember.
 A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1086
 (1886) L.R. 1 Exch. 265
 S.P Gupta V. President of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149 See also Asiad’s case , A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1473
 AIR 1979 S.C.1360