Introduction: Reconceptualizing Judicial Wellbeing
Judicial wellbeing is often framed in terms of material welfare (such as salary, facilities, and administrative support). While these elements remain important, such a perspective is fundamentally incomplete. It overlooks a less visible yet increasingly consequential dimension: the psychological burden borne by judges in the course of their duties. Judges are not only required to manage heavy caseloads, but also to operate under intense public scrutiny, particularly in the era of social media, while continuously engaging with distressing and often traumatic factual circumstances. These pressures do not merely coexist; they accumulate, shaping the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral conditions under which judicial decisions are made. To understand judicial wellbeing solely as a matter of welfare is therefore to ignore the very conditions that may influence the quality, independence, and integrity of judicial reasoning itself.
So what exactly is meant by judicial wellbeing? A more comprehensive understanding of judicial wellbeing is reflected in the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Wellbeing [1], which characterizes it not as a static condition, but as a continuous process through which judges can function and thrive across multiple dimensions of life. These dimensions extend beyond the occupational sphere to include physical, social, cognitive, emotional, and even spiritual domains, indicating that judicial wellbeing is inherently multidimensional. Importantly, the Declaration situates judicial wellbeing not merely as a matter of individual interest, but as a foundational element of the justice system itself. It emphasizes that the wellbeing of judges directly affects not only their own occupational sustainability, but also the experience of court users, the quality of judicial decision-making, and ultimately public confidence in the judiciary. In this sense, judicial wellbeing is elevated from a personal concern to an institutional priority, one that warrants attention and investment on par with other core judicial values such as access to justice, judicial integrity, and efficiency. [2]
In the Indonesian context, the multidimensional conception of judicial wellbeing articulated in the Nauru Declaration on judicial wellbeing provides both a normative benchmark and a point for critical reflection. The institutional framework of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia has, in recent years, emphasized the improvement of judicial administration, integrity, and efficiency. However, these priorities have largely been operationalized through measurable indicators, such as case resolution rates, timeliness, and procedural compliance, while the psychological dimensions of judicial work remain relatively underexplored. This creates a gap between the aspirational standards of “thriving” judges, as envisioned in the Declaration, and the practical reality of judicial work in Indonesia.
This gap becomes even more pronounced when examining the conditions under which judges perform their duties. Judicial work is not only administratively demanding but also psychologically intensive. High and often uneven workloads require sustained cognitive effort over long periods; increased public scrutiny, particularly through digital platforms, exposes judges to immediate and sometimes premature judgment; and repeated involvement with criminal cases can produce cumulative emotional stress. These factors do not operate in isolation, but interact to shape the psychological environment in which judicial reasoning takes place. Yet, despite their significance, these pressures are rarely articulated within the formal institutional framework of judicial performance. It is in this context that the notion of "hidden psychological burden" becomes particularly relevant, as it captures not only the presence of these pressures but also their limited visibility within prevailing conceptions of judicial wellbeing.
Sources of Psychological Burden in Judicial Work
Regarding the discussion on this matter, I was inspired by the 1st International Workshop on Judicial Wellbeing held at the High Court of Denpasar (30 March – 1 April 2026), which brought together judges from supreme courts across ASEAN jurisdictions. Through group discussions, participants consistently identified 3 (three) interrelated factors that shape the psychological conditions under which judges perform their duties. While these factors may manifest differently across jurisdictions, their recurrence suggests that the psychological burden of judging is not incidental, but structurally embedded within judicial practice.
1. Workload emerges as a primary and persistent source of psychological strain.
Empirical literature further demonstrates that the impact of workload extends beyond cognitive demand into broader psychosocial consequences. Judges are often required to cope with consistently heavy caseloads and long working hours, frequently continuing their work beyond formal court hours. This pattern not only intensifies occupational stress but also disrupts work–life balance, limiting time for family, social interaction, and personal activities. Over time, such conditions may foster work-centric behavioral patterns and contribute to social isolation, particularly as judges experience changes in their professional identity and social relationships following appointment to the bench. [3] Beyond adjudicative responsibilities, judges are frequently tasked with administrative duties, further extending their workload. [4] The cumulative effect is not merely physical fatigue, but cognitive overload, which may affect concentration, deliberative depth, and overall decision-making capacity.
2. Public scrutiny, particularly in the digital era, constitutes an additional and increasingly significant source of pressure. Judicial decisions are now subject to immediate public commentary, often before the reasoning behind those decisions is fully understood or formally articulated. This environment exposes judges to premature judgments and reputational risks, creating a form of anticipatory pressure that arises even before the issuance of a decision. While transparency and public engagement are essential to maintaining accountability, the intensity and immediacy of such scrutiny may alter the psychological context in which judicial reasoning occurs.
3. The nature of judicial duties themselves, especially in criminal adjudication, gives rise to cumulative emotional strain. Judges are repeatedly exposed to distressing facts, including violence, abuse, and other forms of human suffering, which may generate lasting psychological effects over time. Despite this, institutional support mechanisms, such as access to professional psychological consultation, remain limited or absent in many jurisdictions. As a result, judges are often required to internally manage the emotional residue of their work without structured avenues for processing or support. This condition not only affects individual wellbeing but may also influence emotional sensitivity and detachment in the adjudicative process.
Taken together, these factors (workload, public scrutiny, and the inherent emotional demands of judicial duties) demonstrate that psychological burden in judicial work is cumulative and systemic. They interact to shape an environment in which judges are expected to maintain impartiality and clarity of reasoning under conditions of sustained cognitive and emotional pressure.
Is Judicial Psychological Burden Truly Hidden or Simply Normalized?
The apparent invisibility of psychological burden in judicial work is not necessarily the result of its absence, but of its normalization. As reflected in the Nauru Declaration on judicial wellbeing, judicial stress is a natural human response to the demands of judicial work and should neither be regarded as a weakness nor subjected to stigma. However, the persistence of stigma within legal and judicial culture has the opposite effect: it transforms what should be recognized and addressed into something silently endured. [5]
This normalization is further reinforced by empirical findings at the global level. A survey conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) involving judges from over 100 countries reveals that judicial stress is both widespread and insufficiently addressed. The study found that 92% of judges experience work-related stress at least occasionally, while 76% report lacking sufficient time to maintain their physical and mental wellbeing. Notably, 89% of respondents are aware of colleagues experiencing stress or anxiety, yet 69% consider discussions of mental health within the judiciary to remain a taboo. At the same time, 97% of judges believe that greater institutional attention should be given to judicial wellbeing. These findings suggest that the issue is not one of invisibility in experience, but of constrained recognition—where stress is widely felt and acknowledged informally, yet insufficiently articulated and addressed within institutional frameworks. [6]
In practice, the pressures associated with workload, public scrutiny, and exposure to distressing case material are often treated as inherent features of judicial office. This normalization operates at multiple levels: within the public, which may perceive such pressures as part of the judicial role; and even within judicial institutions themselves, where psychological strain is rarely formalized as an institutional concern. As a result, the psychological burden borne by judges becomes visible in experience yet invisible in institutional recognition.
The issue, therefore, is not that judicial psychological burden is hidden in an absolute sense, but that it is rendered invisible through normalization. By treating sustained psychological pressure as an expected and even defining characteristic of judicial work, the system risks perpetuating a culture in which stress is internalized, support is underdeveloped, and the need for institutional response remains unarticulated.
Conclusion: From Individual Coping to Institutional Responsibility: A Policy-Oriented Approach
The recognition of judicial psychological burden cannot end at the level of individual awareness. As emphasized in the Nauru Declaration, judicial wellbeing is a shared responsibility between individual judges and judicial institutions. While judges are expected to take active steps to maintain their own wellbeing, such expectations are insufficient if not supported by institutional conditions that enable, rather than undermine, those efforts. Framing judicial wellbeing primarily as a matter of personal resilience risks obscuring the structural sources of psychological burden and, in doing so, shifts responsibility away from the system that produces it. [7]
A meaningful response therefore requires a transition from individual coping strategies to a systemic, policy-oriented approach. Judicial institutions must move beyond implicit recognition toward explicit commitment by integrating psychological wellbeing into institutional priorities alongside efficiency, integrity, and access to justice. In this regard, empirical studies suggest that judicial leaders play a critical role in shaping institutional conditions that support wellbeing. This may include evaluating how autonomy, collegiality, and professional support are expressed within the judiciary, and implementing structural, cultural, and educational initiatives to strengthen them [8]. Such measures may involve facilitated peer support mechanisms, efforts to promote respectful and constructive collegial interactions, and targeted judicial education addressing the human dimensions of judging. These approaches demonstrate that promoting judicial wellbeing is not limited to individual adaptation, but requires deliberate institutional design.
Ultimately, addressing judicial wellbeing is not merely a matter of improving working conditions for judges, but it is integral to safeguarding the quality of judicial decision-making and sustaining public confidence in the justice system. To continue treating psychological burden as an individual matter is to leave its root causes unaddressed. A shift toward institutional responsibility is therefore not optional, but necessary.
References:
[1] The Nauru Declaration on Judicial Wellbeing was made from the Regional Judicial Conference on Integrity and Judicial Wellbeing held in Nauru (organized by UNODC, Nauru Judiciary, and Department of Justice) on 25 July 2024.
[2] Point 1 in the Nauru Declaration.
[3] Elna Rossouw & Sebastiaan Rothmann. (2020), Well-being of judges: A review of quantitative and qualitative studies. (SA Journal of Industrial Psychology), pg. 2-3, https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1759.
[4] Mochamad Mirza & Endang Parahyanti, (2025), Meaningful Work Protects Judges With Occupational Stress, Secondary Traumatic Stress, And Burnout - A Study of Indonesian Judges of The Supreme Court of The Republic of Indonesia. (Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol. 14, no. 1), pg. 95, https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.14.1.2025.91-130.
[5] Point 2 in the Nauru Declaration.
[6] Thomas G. W. Telfer. (2025), Judicial Well-Being And Mindfulness. (Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law, Vol. 109 No. 2), pg. 40. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/judicial-well-being-and-mindfulness/.
[7] Points 3 and 5 in the Nauru Declaration.
[8] Carly Schrever, Carol Hulbert & Tania Sourdin. (2022), Where Stress Presides: Predictors And Correlates Of Stress Among Australian Judges And Magistrates. (Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Vol. 29, No. 2), pg. 315, https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1904456.
