Setting Norms and Managing Evaluation of Judicial Officers
Evaluation of judicial officers is crucial to establish institutional objectives, set performance standards, and promote accountability. This process involves assessing individual performance, managing systemic changes, and identifying areas for improvement. By setting parameters and utilizing a desired process based on objectivity and merit, institutions can enhance the quality and integrity of their judicial officers.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
SETTING NORMS FOR AND MANAGING THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS
THE NEED FOR EVALUATION To identify and establish institutional objectives To try and attain such goals To set standards of performance based on the purpose of the institution and its desired objectives
MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION (INSTITUTIONAL) To focus on purpose and goals To make course corrections To plan systemic changes
INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION To promote performance To check, arrest and weed out non- performance
USE TO THE INSTITUTION Help identify merit based on institutional parameters Help detect personal deficiencies for correction Help discover the rotten apples
MODE OF EVALUATION Set the parameters Determine the modes for assessment Arrive at the parameters and the method of assessment in consultation with judicial officers
THE PRESENT SYSTEM Unit method Judgments appraisal Complaints Subjective personal perception
THE DESIRED PROCESS Based more on objectivity or, at least, subjective satisfaction of objective criteria Based more on promoting merit and good quality A process in which comparison would be possible Demerit should be dealt with in punishments, unless used as a tool in comparison
WHAT SHOULD BE THE ATTRIBUTES (I) Patience in hearing (qualified) Behaviour Acumen and knowledge Disposal Perception as to integrity Quality of judgments Punctuality in court, in orders and in making orders available
ATTRIBUTES (II) Speed in understanding Communication with lawyers in court Quality of judgments Clarity in judgments and orders Speed of disposal Equal treatment to all Openness of mind
SUGGESTIONS Qualities and attitudes Functional skills Domain skills Knowledge
QUALITIES AND ATTITUDES Faith in Constitutional values Personal rectitude Commitment to personal service Openness and human empathy Vision Decisiveness
FUNCTIONAL SKILLS Listening, including active listening Reading Speaking Writing Analysis logic and reasoning English language and communication (including non-verbal communication) Dispute settlement, negotiation, bargaining abilities
DOMAIN SKILLS Appreciation of facts Finding and appreciation of the law Judging and decision-making; responsiveness in judging Managing the adjudication process; teamwork abilities Judgment writing Administrative abilities Foreseeing the impact of judicial decisions
KNOWLEDGE Basic legal knowledge Awareness of key social challenges, including the history of the Constitution Jurisprudence Development of the laws
FINALLY Identification of who will assess Allocation of weights to the different parameters Use of technology both in evaluation and in managing the process of evaluation
