A judge is a public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court or a person who is in charge

of a trial in a court and decides how a person who is guilty of a crime should be punished, or
who makes decisions on legal matters

Power of judge under the Indian evidence act is defined under section 165, this section defines
judge’s power to put question or order production, it authorizes the Judge in order to discover or
to obtain proper proof of relevant facts to ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time of
any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant

Section 165 of the Evidence Act confers a wide discretion upon the Judge. The object of section
165 is to discover the truth or to obtain proper or relevant facts. A judge should endeavour to
elucidate the facts and record evidence in clear and intelligible manner. A judge in a criminal
trial is not merely a disinterested auditor of the contest between the prosecution and the defence.
But it is his duty to elucidate points left in ambiguity by either side, intentionally or
unintentionally, to come to a clear understanding of the actual event that occurred and to remove
the ambiguities as far as possible. The Supreme Court has criticized the silence of trial judges
who have permitted the trials to develop into a contest between the prosecution and defence
resulting into contradictions entering into the trial in several cases. If a criminal court is to be an
effective instrument in dispensing justice, the presiding judge must cease to be a spectator and a
mere recording machine. He must become a participant in the trial by showing intelligent and
active interest. The Judge has to take a participatory role in the trial. He has to monitor the
proceedings in aid of Justice in the manner that something which is not relevant is not
unnecessarily brought on record. He has to control the proceedings effectively so that the
ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. The judgment must be based upon facts declared by this
Act to be relevant and duly proved under this Section and shall not authorize any judge to
compel any witness to answer any question or to produce any document which such witness
would be eligible to refuse to answer or produce under Section 121 to 131, if the questions were
asked or the documents were called for by the opposite party nor shall the judge ask any question
which it would be not in proper way for any other person to ask under Section 148 and 149 nor
shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document except in the cases herein before
excepted.
Some of recommendation were made by malimath committes, in which one of was Right to
silence, The panel recommended a modification to Article 20 (3) of the Constitution that protects
the accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself/herself. The Committee
suggested that the court be given freedom to question the accused to elicit information and draw
an adverse inference against the accused in case the latter refuses to answer. The Committee also
felt that the accused should be required to file a statement to the prosecution disclosing his/her
stand and the other was Presumption of innocence,in which the courts follow “proof beyond
reasonable doubt” as the basis to convict an accused in criminal cases. This, the committee felt,
gives “very unreasonable burden'” on the prosecution and hence suggested that a fact be
considered as proven “if the court is convinced that it is true” after evaluating the matters before
it.This committee also recommended Court’s power to summon any person, whether or not listed
as a witness if it felt necessary.

The report submitted in 2003 pointed out the judge-population ratio in India is 10.5 per million
population as against 50 judges per million population in many parts of the world. The ratio is
19.66 per million people as of 2017.

The National Judicial Commission must have clear guidelines on precise qualifications,
experience, qualities and attributes that are needed in a good judge and also the prescription of
objective criteria to apply to the overall background of the candidate. The higher courts,
including the Supreme Court, should have a separate criminal division consisting of judges who
have specialised in criminal law. The committee suggested every court keep a record of the
timestamps such as date of conclusion of arguments, date of pronouncement of judgment, and so
on, which may be prominently displayed.

The Committee is in favour of a permanent Statutory Committee to prescribe sentencing

guidelines. Pregnant women and women with child below seven years can be kept under house
arrest instead of being lodged in prison, keeping in mind the future life of the child, it said.

In cases where the interest of society is not involved, law should favour settlement without trial
as recommended by the Law Commission. The fine amount may be increased by fifty times. In
cases where the convict is unable to pay fine or has defaulted, community service may be
prescribed.
The Committee also favoured substituting death sentence with imprisonment for life without
commutation or remission.

The Indian Penal Code has to be reviewed to enhance, reduce or apply alternative modes of
punishments keeping in mind new and emerging crimes

Hon’ble Shri Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, a Supreme Court Judge, in his article titled “Judicial
Reforms” published in Halsbury’sLaw Monthly of November 2008 has suggested a few norms,
which the
judges and lawyers must agree to follow very rigorously, in order to liquidate the huge backlog.
The suggestions are quoted below:‘

[1] There must be full utilization of the court working hours.The judges must be punctual and
lawyers must not be asking for adjournments, unless it is absolutely necessary. Grant of
adjournment must be guided strictly by the provisions of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.

[2] Many cases are filed on similar points and one judgment can decide a large number of cases.
Such cases should be clubbed with the help of technology and used to dispose other such cases
on a priority basis; this will substantially reduce the arrears. Similarly, old cases, many of which
have become infructuous, can be separated and listed for hearing and their disposal normally will
not take much time. Same is true for many interlocutory applications filed even after themain
cases are disposed of. Such cases can be traced with the help of technology and disposed of very
quickly.

[3] Judges must deliver judgments within

a reasonable time and in that matter, the guidelines given by the apex court in the case of Anil
Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 must be scrupulously observed, both in civil and
criminal cases.

[4] Considering the staggering arrears, vacations in the higher judiciary must be curtailed by at
least 10 to 15 days and the court working hours should be extended by at least half-an-hour.

[5] Lawyers must curtail prolix and repetitive arguments and should supplement it by written
notes. The length of the oral argument in any case should not exceed one hour and thirty
minutes, unless the case involves complicated questions of law or interpretation of Constitution.

[6] Judgments must be clear and decisive and free from ambiguity, and should not generate
further litigation. We must remember Lord Macaulay’s statement made about 150 years ago.
“Our principle is simply this – Uniformity when you can have it, Diversity when you must have
it, In all cases, Certainty”

[7] Lawyers must not resort to strike under any circumstances and must follow the decision of
the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal v.Union of India
reported in 2003