Then All Lawyers Are Lunatic

Summary: The time tested advice - know the mind of the judge and half the case is won – illustrated by an incident from the court of Justice Mahesh Narain Shukla. 

Justice MN Shukla on his elevation as Chief Justice

‘The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience ... even the prejudices which the judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the Syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.' 

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 'The Common Law' 

LegalTrek - Reminiscences/ Advice

।। Avoid Legalese - Adopt Plain English।।  Know Your Judge।। Soar Rather than Sulk।। One, Who arrests, Bears The Burden।। Then All Lawyers Are Lunatic।। 

This post is part of the series LegalTrek. There are a few posts in this series that relate to 'Biography'; some are 'Miscellaneous' i.e. not falling in any particular group. This one is part reminiscence, part caution, part advice. You can access posts of the other series by clicking on 'LegalTrek' under the heading 'Labels' on the right side.

Letter by Dr. Amar Nath Jha

If you choose litigation over corporate work then you should be in the court everyday - whether you have work or not. This is the best way, not only to understand ‘the prejudices which the judges share with their fellow men’ but learn from the masters performing their art. After all knowing the mind or as Justice Holmes would say understanding the ‘inarticulate major premise’ of the judge is important. But before I tell you about the incident from the court of Justice Mahesh Narain Shukla (06.10.1923 – 28.10.2010) illustrating this point, here is his brief life sketch. 

Justice Shukla had his initial schooling in Kanpur then he joined Allahabad University from where he did his graduation as well post graduation in English. He missed his first division in graduation due to his illness but was third in order of merit in his MA. He had mastery not only over English literature but also Geeta. His English was immaculate and he was a very good speaker – it was always a pleasure to hear his speech. 

He took his oath as judge of the Allahabad High Court on 14.03.1969 and was elevated as its Acting then its Chief Justice on 29.11.1983. He retired on 05.10.1985. 

He had property that was let out and was harassed by the tenants. It made him pro-landlord and no landlord ever lost his case in his court. We waited for him to sit in rent control cases to argue for our landlord briefs. 

He was very fond of tit-bits about the court stories, English literature, how one dressed, how one pronounced the words. One always had sympathetic ears if he was dressed in neat, clean and well ironed clothes; pronounced the words correctly; had some interesting tit-bit, or literary piece relevant to the case. 

Letter by Prof SC Deb

In late 1970’s, early stage of my career, I received a case under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 . It was repealed by the Mental Health Act, in 1987 that in turn is repealed by Mental Health Care Act 2017.

Chapter V of the Indian Lunacy Act was titled ‘Proceedings in Lunacy outside Presidency-towns Inquisition’. It provided proceedings for declaring a person lunatic outside the presidency towns. These were conducted before the district court and an appeal lay to the High Court from its order. 

In the case that I had, a woman was declared to be lunatic and confined to mental asylum and a relation was appointed guardian of her property. Often these proceedings are taken to grab the property. She was produced before the District Judge. The court after observing that the woman was speaking nonsense, irrelevant things, was declared to be lunatic. I had filed first appeal from that order. This case was taken up by Justice Shukla for admission in what is today known as court number 40. 

 

CP Ramaswami Aiyer was the famous lawyer, administrator and politician from Madras from the first half of the last century. I began my arguments with an incident from his life.

Ramaswami was offered judgeship of the Madras High Court at a very young age. It was a time, when judgeship was never refused but Ramaswamy never wanted be a judge. He politely declined it by writing a letter that he would prefer to talk nonsense for a few hours a day than to listen to nonsense everyday and all day long (see End Note-1). 

I narrated this story, after adding ‘irrelevant’ along with ‘nonsense’ and said that if this could be the reason for holding a person lunatic as done by the district court then all lawyers are lunatic. 

Justice Shukla smiled and asked me if I had read ‘The Merchant of Venice’. We all knew his fondness for William Shakespeare. I don’t remember my reply. But it must be inquisitive, because he did tell me the story as well as how Bassanio (who wished to woo Portia) had described his friend Gratiano in Act 1 Scene 1 of the play, 

‘Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and, when you have them, they are not worth the search.’ 

Needless to add, the court admitted the case and granted stay order. 

I often appeared before Justice Shukla but whenever I appeared I checked pronunciation of every word that I was to use, tried narrating some relevant interesting tit-bit or quotation from Shakespeare. It is not that I got favourable orders every time but I always had a judge, who patiently heard and appreciated my submissions. 

One must know inarticulate major premise or prejudice of the judge. The chances are that you will get favourable order or atleast will have sympathetic ears. 

End Note-1: There is interesting offshoot to that letter by CP Ramaswami Aiyar. This is mentioned in his biography titled ‘Sir C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar – A Biography Perfect’ by by Dr. Saroja Sundararajan.

‘One of his [C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar] senior colleagues and close friends was vigorously lobbying for the vacant post on the bench. Besides consulting his astrologer earnestly. Getting wind of the rumour that C.P. was offered the post. He rushed to the latter’s Chamber to verify its veracity. “What does your astrologer say?” asked C.P. seeming to enjoy the visitor’s predicament. When the latter naively replied that the astrologer was certain of his getting the prestigious post, C.P. said much to the relief of his friend, “After all, your astrologer may be correct. I have declined the offer.” As a matter of fact, C.P. interceded on behalf of this friend, who secured the post.’