Judiciary and Mental Health

Judges have to make life-altering decisions on a daily basis, and that corresponds to others as well.

To the nines, they have to hear both sides’ stories, balance them out, and arrive at a decision.

In such a complete cycle, they have to be neutral and remain uncoupled from the situation.

However, is it possible for a human being to forget their social, emotional, or biological background and behave in the capacity of merely a judge, especially on a cyclic basis?

The studies suggest that 9 out of 10 times, a person’s decisions are influenced by numerous factors, mainly their emotions and preconceived conceptions.

As per the World Health Organization (WHO), mental health is “a state of mental well-being that authorizes people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, work productively and fruitfully, and make a contribution to their community.”

In common parlance, it encompasses a person’s social, psychological, and emotional well-being.

Mental health is a paramount part of one’s life as it exerts influence on a person’s conviction, standpoint, and, consequently, decision-making.

Good mental health assists in building up a person’s productivity and effectiveness in day-to-day activities, leading to quality decision-making and enabling the person to adapt to changes and contend with mishaps.

It is primarily going through all the trauma of the victims, but vicariously. Moreover, several studies have been conducted to comprehend the deep-dyed impact of STS on police, doctors, therapists, shelter workers, and emergency relief workers; however, the study of its impact on the lives of judges is still at a nascent stage.

On the other hand, poor mental health results in debilitated productivity, social problems, susceptibility to abuse, impulsive actions, and additional health difficulties like eating disorders.

Thus, mental health problems represent five of the 10 leading causes of disability worldwide, amounting to nearly one-third of the disability in the world, and the global burden of mental health diseases is envisaged to intensify in the forthcoming decade.

Mental health is significantly analogous to one’s walks of life, so it is not a confound that many psychologists and therapists treat a great number of doctors on a daily basis.

Moreover, the structured review conducted on medical professionals has disclosed that the environment in which doctors work has had a conspicuous impact on them, resulting in a consistent dwindling in their ability to empathize with their patients.

It will be fair-minded to draw an analogy between a judicious judge and a divinity doctor.

Both lines of work comprise coping with human beings, life and death, the trauma of the people entangled in the matter, and the pressure of determining someone’s fate.

Judicial Distress: An Elephant in the Room

Dealing with matters of divorce, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, murder, and other hardened crimes constitutes a judge’s day.

In addition to this, there is a minute-by-minute increasing number of pending cases in the traditional Nepalese court structure, where 122,419 cases await verdict after a good deal of time, as is customary.

This makes imperturbability and detachment incumbent tools for a judge to effectuate their duties. In this way, judges are no different from doctors.

However, these apparatuses are not necessarily convenient or may not be reasonable to deal with the sheer volume and numerous nature of cases that a judge has to decode.

A person is mindful when they are enduring physical fatigue, but decision fatigue is intractable to quantify because it is more laborious to realize that one is “low on mental energy.”

The judges go through what is called “judicial ‘distress’. Judicial distress is “any condition, problem, or situation that undermines a judge’s ability to carry out their judicial functions or poses a challenge to their physical or emotional stability.” Hence, judicial distress is the reverberation of a number of factors.

Vicarious Trauma:

Vicarious trauma, or Secondary Trauma Stress (STS), is “the trauma suffered by health and justice system professionals who must concentrate on accounts and watch videos or pictures of traumatic situations such as abuse, torture, rape, and murder.”

It is primarily going through all the trauma of the victims, but vicariously. Moreover, several studies have been conducted to comprehend the deep-dyed impact of STS on police, doctors, therapists, shelter workers, and emergency relief workers; however, the study of its impact on the lives of judges is still at a nascent stage.

The judges prick up their ears to the accounts of rape victims, abused children, torture victims, and grieving families on a routine basis, where incessant exposure to STS can have a negative impact on a person’s life.

In India, in the case of Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015), the judge giving the ruling had to be flown to the court in a helicopter and was given a Z+ security cover because of threats to his life by the accused followers.

As a corollary, it has the potential to detrimentally damage a judge’s overall mental health.

Decision Fatigue:

Decision fatigue is the “exacerbation of one’s ability to make good decisions after a prolonged session of decision-making.”

No matter how rational and cognizant a person is, they can’t make decision after decision without paying a biological price.

A person is mindful when they are enduring physical fatigue, but decision fatigue is intractable to quantify because it is more laborious to realize that one is “low on mental energy.”

With every choice or decision a person makes, the next one becomes harder for the brain to make.

Before all else, a judge has to make numerous decisions every day, and the mental work of settling case after case, irrespective of the individual merits, wears down the judges.

In addition to that, a judge is considerate of the impact their decisions have on the lives of people. This puts pressure on them to be fair, impartial, and take “the right decisions at the right time.”

Pressure:

A judge faces pressure from different areas, which is inherent in a judge’s work in the internal and external pressure to be impartial, neutral, and make the ‘right decision.

While umpiring the cases, one party becomes thrilled at a triumph, and the other party becomes disenchanted at a defeat.

This has the potential to notably reduce the judicial distress faced by the judges, in addition to the agony of the other stakeholders in the judicial system.

In addition to this, judges are always under public scrutiny, especially in big cases where they are deferred. Usually, such instances engender dissatisfaction among the masses, leading to criticism of the decisions by the public court.

This is because a judge has to leverage the decisions on the basis of constitutional morality, which does not always coexist with societal morality.

Furthermore, a judge’s safety is at risk in cases where politicians, gangsters, and other influential people are involved.

In India, in the case of Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015), the judge giving the ruling had to be flown to the court in a helicopter and was given a Z+ security cover because of threats to his life by the accused followers.

Similarly, the question of the independence of the judiciary in Nepal is also frequently raised due to improper influence over the judiciary’s decision-making.

Way Forward

Judicial distress affects a judge’s ability to accomplish their responsibilities with full competence.

A judge’s unstable mental health can have catastrophic consequences for all the stakeholders in the judicial system, including the faith of the public in the judiciary.

It is a top priority to take this into account and take magnificent measures to prevent or lessen judicial distress where such significant steps can be undertaken, such as having a compulsory counseling center in courts with professional counselors and therapists on a periodic basis.

Further, assistance can be yielded to not only the judges but also other stakeholders, such as litigants.

It will go a long way in revamping our standards, which ultimately will make the judiciary a strong pillar of democracy.

There is also a need to increase the number of judges in the country to minimize the pressure and burden put on a single judge, especially in a country like Nepal.

This has the potential to notably reduce the judicial distress faced by the judges, in addition to the agony of the other stakeholders in the judicial system.