Maxim: Aucupia Verboem Sunt Judice Indigna

The Latin legal maxim “Aucupia Verboem Sunt Judice Indigna” can be translated into English as “Eavesdropping (or sycophancy) is unworthy of a judge.” This maxim expresses the idea that a judge should not engage in improper or unethical conduct, such as listening to or encouraging gossip or flattery. Here’s a detailed explanation along with examples:

1. Aucupia: This term refers to “eavesdropping” or “sycophancy” – the practice of listening to private conversations or flattering in an insincere way to gain favor.
2. Verboem: This can be translated as “unworthy” or “undignified.”
3. Sunt: This is a form of the verb “to be,” indicating “are.”
4. Judice: This term means “judge” or “judgment.”
5. Indigna: This translates to “unworthy” or “undignified.”

Now, let’s explore the meaning and provide examples:

• Legal Context: This maxim is often cited to emphasize the importance of judicial integrity and dignity.
• Principle: The maxim highlights that judges should maintain a high standard of conduct and avoid engaging in activities that are unworthy or undignified. Judges are expected to uphold the dignity and impartiality of the judicial office.

Examples:

1. Avoiding Unethical Influence: If a judge is approached by individuals attempting to influence a case through improper means, the judge should reject such attempts and maintain independence and impartiality.
2. Refusing Flattery: If parties or lawyers engage in sycophantic behavior, trying to gain favor by excessively praising the judge or engaging in flattery, the judge is expected to resist such efforts and focus on the merits of the case.
3. Respecting Confidentiality: Eavesdropping on private conversations related to a case is considered unethical. Judges should rely on the information presented during formal proceedings and not on private or unauthorized communications.
4. Avoiding Gossip: Judges should refrain from participating in or encouraging gossip or discussions that could compromise the perception of their impartiality.

In summary, “Aucupia Verboem Sunt Judice Indigna” underscores the importance of judges maintaining a dignified and unwavering commitment to ethical conduct, avoiding activities that could compromise their integrity or the perception of fairness in the judicial system.

Case Laws:

 1995  PLC(CS)  408     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SALEEM        VS.         PAKISTAN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE

               —- Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1860), S. 1—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Employee of Pakistan Administrative Staff College–Compulsory retirement—Validity—Pakistan Administrative Staff College being a society registered, under Societies Registration Act, 1860, its employees were neither civil servants nor employees of statutory corporation but were governed by the principle of Master and Servant and in case of any violation of any rule or regulation by the employer, no Constitutional petition could be filed.

                                                                          

   1979  PLD  727     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

HAMEED KAUSAR VS.         THE STATE

            Aucupia verboem sunt judice indigna (verbal quibbles are unworthy of a Judge).