Justice Gautam Patel’s unabashed manner of chiding lawyers in his peculiar style of speaking, coupled with judgments written in crisp, short sentences, revealed a man who loved the law and, more importantly, his job.

Lawyers who found themselves on the receiving end of his sharp remarks on a particular day would, at best, discuss and criticise his behaviour over routine evening tea with their sympathisers. The next day, however, those very lawyers would be back in his courtroom, attempting to persuade him, seek relief and secure an audience. And that was the extent of it.

What transcends the relationship between a lawyer and a judge, however, is the litigant - the person at the end of the rope. Whether it is seeking justice or suffering the consequences of an adverse order, the litigant often bears the impact of a judgment far longer than anyone else. Anger often blinds even the wise and disgruntled litigants often carry their resentment long after the legal battle has ended.

The Syedna judgment was delivered nearly two years ago and Justice Patel has since retired. While Justice Patel himself may remain nonchalant in the face of threats, what requires serious reflection is whether judges can truly be expected to administer justice freely and fearlessly when faced with intimidation of this nature. It also raises an equally important question: whether there is a pressing need for stricter laws when it comes to such vicious attacks and stronger protection for judges.

With the Indian High Commission in London taking cognisance of the attack and ensuring greater protection for Justice Patel’s family, the immediate situation may, for the moment, appear contained. But the buck does not stop there. Recently, another judge of the Bombay High Court found himself on the brink of being defrauded by a lawyer. In Delhi, a magistrate was assaulted with stones being pelted at his residence by a resentful litigant. Over and beyond this, lies the constant barrage of online trolling, abuse and threats issued from anonymous accounts on selectively edited video clips, designed more for clickbait than context, which only serve to amplify hostility.

While duty must come first, one cannot help but wonder about the immense pressure that accompanies the office and the chair judges occupy. Constitutional democracy loses its way when intimidation becomes a substitute for appeal, threats replace arguments and fear enters the courtroom through the back door. These attacks on the judiciary are deplorable and raise a fundamental question: are judges truly free in a constitutional democracy to decide cases without fear or favour? Many in the judiciary already live reclusive and restricted personal lives. Attacks directed at family members only reinforce those concerns and further shrink the space within which judges can live ordinary lives.

Legally, there is no comprehensive framework dealing specifically with judicial security. Protection measures for judges are largely coordinated at the state and district levels. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 merely grants immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for acts done or words spoken in the discharge of judicial functions. And that is not enough. Concrete and uniform security protocols must be developed for judges at every level of the judiciary. Every threat must be treated with seriousness. Those responsible must not only be identified but also prosecuted and punished in accordance with law. Such incidents have consequences beyond the individuals immediately targeted. They create an atmosphere in which judges may hesitate before passing orders that are legally correct but publicly unpopular. Attacks on judges should be unequivocally condemned by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, which must not hesitate to take suo motu cognisance wherever necessary, and with an iron fist.

Democracy does not fail when judges deliver unpopular judgments. It fails when citizens or interest groups seek to intimidate judges into changing them. The attack on Justice Patel’s daughter is not merely an attack on a retired judge. It is an attempt to send a message to every judge who may one day be called upon to decide an unpopular case. A judgment may be challenged. It may even be criticised. But it must never be met with intimidation. The day judges begin to fear consequences outside the courtroom is the day the rule of law begins to yield to the rule of pressure.

Vilasini Balasubramanian is an advocate practicing before the Bombay High Court.