When Bar and Bench Stand Together, Justice Moves Forward
The Ld. Bar and the Hon'ble Bench share one purpose. A young Advocate's first-hand account of 28th October at the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, and why the litigant pays when either side weakens the other.
Adv. Pooja Chand Dwivedi
10/31/20262 min read
On 28 October at the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, I witnessed a reminder that the administration of justice depends on more than courtrooms, procedures and orders. It also depends on the relationship between the Bar and the Bench: distinct in their duties, yet joined by a common purpose. As a young advocate, I left with a clearer understanding that when either side is weakened, the consequences do not remain within the institution. The litigant ultimately bears them.
A Shared Constitutional Purpose
The advocate speaks for a person who may have waited years for a hearing, entrusted their liberty, livelihood, property or family concerns to the legal process, and arrived in court seeking a fair determination. The judge must hear the matter impartially, apply the law and deliver justice. These responsibilities are different, but they meet at the same point: protecting the integrity of the process and ensuring that disputes are resolved according to law.
This shared purpose does not require the Bar and Bench to agree on every question. A healthy justice system allows rigorous submissions, careful scrutiny and reasoned disagreement. Indeed, respectful challenge can strengthen decision-making. But such exchanges must preserve the dignity of the court and the independence of the advocate. Institutional respect is not silence; it is the discipline to disagree without losing sight of the people for whom the system exists.
The Litigant Pays the Price
When relations between the Bar and Bench become strained, the immediate dispute may appear institutional. Its practical effects, however, reach the courtroom user. Hearings may be disrupted, matters may be delayed, and confidence in the fairness and accessibility of justice may diminish. For a litigant, a missed hearing is rarely an abstract inconvenience. It can mean continued uncertainty, additional expense, lost time and renewed anxiety.
The burden falls especially heavily on those with limited resources. A person who has travelled a long distance, taken leave from work or borrowed money to attend court cannot easily absorb further delay. Nor should any litigant be made to carry the cost of a disagreement in which they had no part. The justice system is not served when one institution is set against the other; it is the public that depends on their ability to function together.
What a Young Advocate Must Learn
My first-hand experience of 28 October was therefore also a lesson in professional responsibility. Advocacy is not only the ability to argue a proposition or cite authority. It includes preparation, restraint, courtesy and an awareness of how conduct affects the administration of justice. Judges, too, must be able to perform their duties with independence and fairness, while the Bar must be able to assist the court fearlessly and responsibly.
Both institutions deserve to be strong—not in opposition, but in the fulfilment of their respective roles. Strength means maintaining standards, addressing legitimate concerns through appropriate channels and preserving the conditions in which hearings can proceed. It means remembering that courtroom dignity is not ceremonial; it helps protect public confidence and the right to be heard.
Justice Requires Partnership
That day at the Allahabad High Court reinforced a simple principle: the Bar and the Bench are not rivals for authority. They are partners in a constitutional endeavour, accountable in different ways but connected by the same obligation to justice. Their independence and mutual respect are essential safeguards, not competing interests.
For a young advocate, this is a lesson worth carrying beyond one date or one courtroom. Whenever either side is diminished, the justice system loses capacity—and the litigant waits. Whenever both uphold their responsibilities with firmness and respect, the institution is better able to serve those who come before it. The common purpose must remain clear: justice for the person who depends on the court.