india rules-of-court
Can lawyers ask judges questions?
<p>I came across a courtroom exchange <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1599642235142025217" rel="noreferrer">on twitter</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Adv: I ask this question.</p>
<p>J. CT Ravikumar: Who are you asking the question to?</p>
<p>Adv: To the #SupremeCourt</p>
<p>J. Shah: You cannot ask us questions. You can say 'I ask myself'. That's okay. Only we have that prerogative - to put questions to you.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As seen in the responses below, to the general public, this comes across as highhandedness.</p>
<p>Let's assume the lawyer is a newcomer still getting used to the system. What I'd like to know:</p>
<ol>
<li>Would judges in the courts of developed countries like USA, UK, France, Germany, etc. give similar instructions in their own courts? Or is this phenomenon, let's say, &quot;uniquely Indian&quot;?</li>
<li>If so, what would be the reason a lawyer can't ask a judge questions?</li>
</ol>

<p>The question should not include France and Germany, and should be limited to common law jurisdictions that are similar to India, because the function of judges differs starkly between adversarial vs. inquisitorial systems.</p>
<p>The adversarial model pits two parties against each other, with the judge serving as the decider (of law, and perhaps of fact). The parties can offer witnesses, who can be compelled to respond to questions, and the attorney asking the question gets to control the question asked (subject to a possible objection by the other party, to be ruled on by the judge).</p>
<p>The judge can rule on requests (which are not questions) i.e. petitions by either party. Otherwise, the judge sits there more or less mute, soaking up the argumentation being presented. Appellate proceedings are somewhat special in that the justices may address questions to the attorney, in order to better understand the logic of the proffered argument. The burden is on the attorney to make the case. There is <em>no</em> direct burden on the justice to &quot;make a case&quot;. The &quot;court of public opinion&quot; may be relevant in a jurisdiction where the justice is an elected office or is appointed for limited time. Or, the contrary opinion of a higher court may have some influence on a justice's rulings – this is not the case with a Supreme Court.</p>
<p>In other words, it would be highly dysfunctional within the adversarial system for a party to be allowed to interrogate a judge. Formal petitions are allowed, as long as you follow proper form.</p>

<h2>Yes, in the appropriate way</h2>
<p>In essence, every trial is a question - guilty or not guilty, for the plaintiff or the defendant, or for the applicant or the respondent - so all trials ask a question of the court.</p>
<p>Similarly, raising an objection is asking a question of the judge.</p>
<p>Also, there are many administrative and procedural questions that the advocates have to ask the judge (and each other) simply to ensure the trial works. For example, “witness A has had to have their wisdom teeth extracted, is it ok if we move them from tomorrow to next Thursday?” Those types of questions are fine.</p>
<p>However, you can’t ask a question of the judge while you are making a statement to the court explaining your position. That’s not appropriate. And, typically, the higher you go in the court hierarchy, the less tolerance there is for inappropriate behaviour, particularly from advocates that should know better.</p>

<p>In Germany, the <em>Strafprozessordnung</em> (criminal proceedings regulations) <a href="https://dejure.org/gesetze/StPO/240.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">specifies</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>§ 240 Fragerecht</p>
<p>(1) Der Vorsitzende hat den beisitzenden Richtern auf Verlangen zu
gestatten, Fragen an den <strong>Angeklagten,</strong> die <strong>Zeugen</strong> und die
<strong>Sachverständigen</strong> zu stellen.</p>
<p>(2) Dasselbe hat der Vorsitzende der Staatsanwaltschaft, dem
Angeklagten und dem Verteidiger sowie den Schöffen zu gestatten. [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To paraphrase, the presiding judge has to permit (substantial) questions (only) to the accused, the witnesses, and the experts.</p>
<p>This concerns formal questions within the actual trial; I must assume that people are generally free to talk to each other, including questioning each other, outside the actual sessions.</p>
<p>Some communication external to the actual trial may be inappropriate though and might compromise the trial when detected. In the docudrama <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stammheim_(film)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Stammheim</em></a> about the contentious criminal trial against the German radical left terrorist group RAF, there is a <a href="https://youtu.be/0L16rIX3lJc?list=PLZ1aGAyJHA8ku1ru6J9IBQLH6NxiFY0Eb&amp;t=33" rel="nofollow noreferrer">scene in which the presiding judge calls a member of the defense team</a> to discuss a challenge on the grounds of bias. The lawyer is highly apprehensive when he realizes who is calling. He clearly finds the call inappropriate.</p>
