FALI NARIMAN---SUPREME COURT

God Save the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Fali Nariman; Published by Hay House Publishers ;Pages 304;Price Rs.599/-

***********************************************************************

Fali Nariman writes,"In India,in recent months the way in which the Supreme Court of India has been "run",has become not just a matter of interest or debate--it has become a matter of acute controversy,causing widespread concern,because--and only because--a singular lack of a spirit of collegiality has been exhibited  amongst the judges,especially amongst the five seniormost including the Chief Justice of India. A pity indeed! Simply because it leaves us all wringing our hands in the "winter of despair".

 Fali S Nariman is 90.  He has spent 68 years at the bar--which is the tenure of  the Supreme Court of India. He has argued before 32 Chief Justices, witnessed passing of  hundreds of laws both being made and amended. For the first time he saw something like the rebellion of the four senior-most judges on January 12, 2018. This has compelled him to write the  book under review.  

The book has been written after a most controversial year in the history of the  Court. The January 12 Press Conference — one of its kind in the history of the court — dented the image of the institution. Four senior most judges, one of whom has been appointed the 46th Chief Justice of India, went public with their grievances against sitting Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra.

The book chronicles the slow build-up of the tension which spilled outside the quiet inner halls of the Supreme Court to the lawns of Justice Jasti Chelameswar’s official residence.

Nariman holds both Chief Justice Misra and Justice Chelameswar, the number two judge, accountable. The Chief Justice, for his silence in the face of a letter, written by the four of his Collegium colleagues, seeking an explanation about the assignment of specific cases to certain judges in the Supreme Court; Justice Chelameswar for ordering the setting up of a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the medical college corruption case. 

  According to Nariman quarrels among judges are not infrequent. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, during the hearing of the First Judges case in the 1980s, made the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, file an affidavit in the Supreme Court to explain the appointment and transfer of a particular high court judge.

Justice Bhagwati went on to note in his judgment that the affidavit was “delightfully vague”.

Nariman quotes Prof. Granville Austin that Justice Bhagwati did not quite like the fact that Justice Chandrachud preceded him as Chief Justice of India.

Nariman provides a valuable lesson for future chief justices, about the dangers of the lack of the spirit of collegiality in one of the world’s most powerful courts.

The book quotes Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti’s observations in the judgment in Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt Ltd versus State of Bihar. He said “when there is little or no judicial collegiality, there is less incentive for judges to exercise self-restraint....”

Nariman writes about "objectivity", "transparency" and "trouble spots" of individual Chief Justices of India, which he says "can be explained only by appreciating" that the Supreme Court of India "is an institution whose importance and prestige is far above that of the men and women, who for the time being, sit in it or preside over it".

Thus, "it was a grave error of judgement" on the part of Justice Jasti Chelameswar to "direct by order the setting up of a Bench of five judges to hear a particular matter mentioned before him. It was EQUALLY (emphasis in original) an error on the part of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra not to have replied (privately, of course) to the undated letter (of November 2017) addressed to him by the four senior-most judges listing their complaints" which got publicised on January 12, 2018.

"Silence in the face of a letter containing allegations (against the person or authority to whom it is addressed) is never an option. When you reply to a letter, you reveal your stand - and posterity judges you by what you said at that time and not by hindsight," he says.

"Besides, when a Chief Justice 'digs in his heels' and fixes the roster or determines the composition of benches not to the liking of any particular judge or judges, there is no option but to 'lump' it and await his departure from office at the constitutionally prescribed date of retirement,"

Judges lose confidence in each other. The rebel press conference was the crossing of the Rubicon in many ways. And, one of the worst manifestations of the revolt is that it became open season for anyone to throw muck at the judiciary.

Nariman is all praise for Atal Bihari Vajpayee who taught him  an invaluable lesson.

"Atalji was an astute statesman to his fingertips. Courageous when required. Diplomatic when necessary. He taught me a great lesson -- that it pays not to be angry or lose your temper when speaking in Parliament. It is always advisable to scotch your opponent with faint praise!" writes Nariman.

According to Nariman  Vajpayee is "one of the greatest statesmen of his time -- in my view, the greatest Indian statesmen of my time in Parliament", He  instilled in him "a sense of fun and not merely a sense of good humour".

One example of this was when Vajpayee had returned from a foreign visit and it was customary for the prime minister to make a statement in each House of Parliament. MPs handpicked by the Chair were asked to pose questions so that more information could be elicited.

On one such occasion, Nariman found himself "one of the fortunate few to do so", along with two members belonging to different political parties. One of them posted a couple of questions and so did Nariman.

The third MP was diplomat-turned-politician K. Natwar Singh of the Congress, which was then in opposition "and his questions were very critical of the government and full of invective as well".

"Natwar Singh spoke in crisp English: 'Mr Chairman Sir, I have six questions for the Prime Minister.' And he set them out one by one. While raising each question, he raised his voice as well: a decibel louder -- each time angrier than when he had asked the previous question!"

 Vajpayee answered the questions raised by others and then came to the six posed by Natwar Singh. "Speaking in fluent Hindi he noted that the Congress MP was very intelligent and always knew his facts. He then added: 'Lekin unko gussa bahut jaldi aa jata hai' (he gets angry very quickly). That riposte brought the House down. The six questions remained unanswered -- having been dissolved in laughter," 

Nariman writes "There is a close race today as to which is lower in public esteem -- the lawyer or the law giver," adding that "sadly, for both lawyers and members of Parliament, ethics in politics or in the law is at a low."

Vajpayee, Nariman writes, had a "very trusted, efficient and well-loved lieutenant" in his Council of Ministers. "But in July 2000, when that Minister stepped out of the crease and made intemperate remarks against the integrity of the then Chief Justice of India (about wrongly stating his date of birth), and when this became public, Prime Minister Vajpayee moved swiftly -- on the high moral and ethical principle that one constitutional functionary must never denigrate or malign another high-ranking constitutional functionary,"

Vajpayee went to the President and had him sacked, says Nariman.

"There were few protests, from Vajpayee's own party. But Vajpayee was adamant -- there was no taking back of the dropped minister. This high moral sense of values exhibited by Vajpayee is what I what consider another great example of ethics in politics." 

Nariman  has high praise for Nani Palkhivala.He quotes with approval Justice H.R.Khanna,who records in his memoirs--"..the heights of eloquence to which Palkhivala had risen had seldom been equalled and never been surpassed in the history of the Supreme Court."

The book is noted for its graceful style and wealth of anecdotes.

It must be read by those who have anything to do with law--especially budding lawyers.

P.P.Ramachandran.

29/9/2019.