Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant has said judges leave behind their personal beliefs when they take the Bench, asserting that what is said in court is neither an expression of a judge’s private opinion nor necessarily an indication of the final judicial view.Ahead of his interaction with representatives of lawyers from Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh over issues relating to the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) scheme, the CJI spoke about the philosophy of judging, the significance of courtroom exchanges and the need for dialogue in resolving differences.Justice Surya Kant said judges exercise “complete impersonality” while hearing and deciding cases. The only guiding factors, he said, are the Constitution and the laws.Explaining the judicial process, the CJI said courtroom observations should not be read as personal opinions of the judge. Nor should every remark be construed as reflecting the court’s eventual conclusion.According to him, judges often put questions, make tentative observations or advance propositions only to invite a response, test the strength of an argument or obtain further clarity.“It is part of courtroom craft,” he said, explaining that judges sometimes say things not because they have formed an opinion but because the judicial process requires rival viewpoints to be fully explored before a conclusion is reached.CJI Surya Kant said the judicial process is one of inquiry before adjudication. He said courts ultimately speak through their signed judgments and orders, while oral exchanges during hearings are intended to probe issues, test competing submissions and enable the court to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.The CJI said even a sentence, a phrase or a single word lifted from the course of a hearing and read in isolation could create an impression entirely different from what was intended. Court proceedings, the CJI said, have to be appreciated in their full factual and legal context, explaining that judges often raise questions, put forward hypothetical propositions or make tentative observations to elicit responses, seek greater clarity and fully examine rival viewpoints before deciding a case.Referring to the proposed meeting with representatives of lawyers over concerns relating to the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) policy, the CJI said dialogue assumes even greater importance whenever differences arise between stakeholders.“It is imperative to keep the dialogue open in any controversy because talking is the way out. It helps the person who is speaking to vent his feelings, his emotions and his problems, and it helps the person who is listening to understand them more properly and to balance things out in a fair manner, keeping in view the interests of all stakeholders,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said.The CJI added meaningful dialogue enables concerns to be understood in their proper perspective and helps arrive at balanced solutions while keeping in view the legitimate interests of all stakeholders. He indicated that engagement and communication strengthen institutions by replacing misunderstanding with informed appreciation and by allowing differing viewpoints to be reconciled within the framework of fairness and the Constitution.