A Verdict Isn't Just Ink on Paper: Why Justice Nagarathna Believes a Judge's Change Shouldn't Restart Justice

Imagine, for a moment, a lengthy court case. Years, perhaps, meticulously argued, mountains of evidence laid out, testimonies heard, only for the presiding judge to be suddenly transferred or, perhaps, retire just before delivering the final verdict. What happens then? Often, tragically, it's back to square one. Everything, all that hard work, all those crucial proceedings, simply vanishes as if they never happened.

This very real and deeply frustrating scenario is precisely what concerned Justice B.V. Nagarathna, whose recent dissenting opinion resonates with a profound call for judicial integrity and efficiency. She didn't mince words, highlighting a deeply troubling, almost routine, practice: the wholesale 'tossing out' of proceedings when a judge changes. For her, you see, it’s not merely an administrative hiccup; it’s a systemic flaw that undermines the very fabric of justice itself.

A judge's pronouncement, even if not fully complete, carries immense weight, she argues. It represents a significant investment of time, intellect, and, let's be honest, public resources. To simply discard it and begin afresh is, in her view, nothing short of wasteful and counterproductive. Think of the litigants involved, often vulnerable individuals or families, who pour their life savings and their hopes into the judicial process. To have their case, already halfway or even three-quarters done, suddenly reset is an unspeakable burden.

This 'start fresh' mentality doesn't just breed delay; it cultivates a gnawing sense of injustice, slowly eroding trust in the very institutions meant to protect them. Beyond individual hardship, it wastes precious judicial time and resources, contributing significantly to the notorious backlog that continues to plague our courts. It’s an inefficiency that our already strained legal system simply cannot afford, nor should it tolerate.

Justice Nagarathna's vision is clear: rather than discarding everything that has come before, a successor judge should ideally pick up precisely where the previous one left off. At the very least, she suggests, they should carefully consider the evidence already recorded and arguments presented, building upon the existing foundation instead of demolishing it entirely. It’s about continuity, about respecting the diligent work already done, and, ultimately, about ensuring that justice isn't needlessly prolonged or, worse, denied.

Her powerful dissent isn't just a legal footnote; it’s a vital clarion call for fundamental reform. It urges us to re-examine outdated practices that inadvertently betray the very spirit of justice. It’s a powerful reminder that judicial processes aren't just about procedures and protocols, but profoundly about people, fairness, and maintaining unwavering faith in the rule of law.