The headline where justice Augustine Paul castigated justice Gopal Sri Ram had many people asking, what are our judges for? Are they for enforcing rules and procedures or is their primary job to ensure the administration of justice?

From the comments made by Augustine Paul against Sri Ram, he criticised him for not following two Federal Court rulings. In the same breath, he also said that Sri Ram was right in his conclusion that the ruling were wrong.

That leaves the issue of whether judges are to follow previous decisions of a superior court even if they are wrong. Isn't there something wrong with this line of thinking?

This leads to the fundamental question of what are the duties of a judge? Is he not there to ensure the administration of justice without fear or favour? Is it not correct to think that the instinct of a judge is to ensure that the administration of the law is tempered with the common sense of justice?

Justice, as we know, it is an abstract idea and we leave it to the good sense of the judges to interpret it with basic common sense within the framework of the law. What is frightening is that Augustine Paul seems to give preponderance over the letter of the law rather than the governance of justice.