Statue of Goddess of Justice - Themis at Bombay High Court
Command Over Language Is An Asset
Blitz was a investigative weekly newspaper, started in 1941. It was published in English, and with editions in Hindi, Urdu and Marathi languages. There was some misreporting of UP Legislative Assembly (the Assembly) proceedings in its 29-09-1951 issue.
This misreporting was referred by the Speaker of the Assembly to the Privilege Committee (the Committee) on 08-10-1951. The Committee sent back its report on 09-03-1952. In pursuance of the same, the Assembly passed a resolution on the same day requiring the Speaker to issue a warrant of arrest against Homi Dinshaw Mistry (The Plaintiff), the acting editor of Blitz, to face contempt proceeding of the the Assembly.
The Plaintiff was arrested on 11th March 1952 to answer the charges. In the meantime, the Supreme Court ordered his release on 18-03-1952 on the admitted fact that the Plaintiff was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest - a violation of Article 22 of the Constitution. This decision is reported in Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan AIR 1954 SC 636.
The Plaintiff was released on the same day in the evening but a notice was also served on the same day, to present himself before the Bar of the assembly at 11am on 19-03-1951.
Later, the Plaintiff filed OS number 203 of 1953 before the Bombay High Court for his wrongful arrest and detention against: (1) Shree Nafisul Hussan, the speaker of the UP Legislative Assembly; (2) State of UP; (3) Commissioner of the police for the Greater Bombay area at the time of arrest; and (4) State of Bombay. Nani Palkhivala appeared for the Plaintiff; KL Misra for Defendant 1 & 2 and HM Seervai for Defendant 3 & 4.
The question of law - regarding jurisdiction of the Assembly to issue warrant and arrest beyond its territorial jurisdiction - was argued first and the right to lead evidence on damages was reserved. The suit was dismissed on 16 November, 1956 by Acting CJ NHC Coyajee. The decision is reported in Homi D Mistry v. Shree Nafisul Hussan (1958) 60 BomLR 279 = ILR 1957 Bom 218.
It is relevant to point out that the Plaintiff ultimately appeared before the Assembly and tendered his apology to the speaker as well as Assembly. The apology was published in the Blitz, dated the 12th April, 1958 {see Appendix-IV (further comments of the Committee on the issues raised by RK Karanjia) paragraph 3 at pages 83-84 of the thirteenth report of the Committee of Privileges (The Blitz Case) presented on 11th August, 1961}.
Another representation of Goddess of Justice - Bombay High Court. These statues have stories of their own.
After Palkhivala’s submissions for the plaintiff, KL Misra got up to answer first as he was for the main defendants. His submissions continued for about four days. On the first day, soon after KL Misra started his submissions, Seervai realised that a master court craftsman – never heard in the Bombay High Court - was amongst them. He sent a word to the young lawyers in the Bar Association and law students of the Bombay University to come to the court and listen the arguments. Even before lunch hour reached, the court was packed – with not an inch space left. The Bombay University declared a holiday in the law faculty for the students and teachers to listen his arguments.
When Seervai got up to reply on behalf of Bombay police, he began by saying,
“I feel that even if I argue, my arguments will only wash off the beautiful varnish with which KL Misra has coated this case.”
“I wish to say that never in my long career as a judge or lawyer have I ever heard such an argument”, observed NHC Coyajee Acting CJ, who decided the case.
Kanga, the Bombay Bar President said,
“I have been telling my juniors from the last few decades how a case should be argued, but till Mr. Misra arrived in the court, I could not give any practical example.”
An appeal was filed against dismissal order. It was taken up before a bench presided over by Chief Justice MC Chagla. He observed,
“Mr. Palkhivala, there is a division bench in your favour, how come you lost the case.”
“My Lords, I have the misfortune of being opposed by KL Misra and if he appears again, I am not sure of the fate of this appeal,” answered Palkhivala.
The appeal was dismissed however neither the judgement in appeal is reported nor its details are available. If anyone knows the same then please comment.
In the next post, we will talk about some experiences of mine with that great personality.
Justice MC Chagla took charge of the office Chief Justice of the Bombay High court on 15-08-1947 from Sir Leonard Stone, who being Englishman thought it improper to head a High Court of independent India. Later sometimes in 1948, he (MC Chagla J.) was appointed as Chief Justice. He resigned to become Indian Ambassador to the US and his farewell function in the High Court was held on 25-09-1958.
However, Chagla CJ was acting Governor from 15-10-1956 to 09-12-1956. During this period, NHC Coyajee J. became Acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Later, when the appeal was taken against his judgment, MC Chagla J. had resumed his duties as the Chief Justice.
The pictures on this post are from the book ‘The Bombay High Court: The story of the Building 1878-2003’
#KanhaiyaLalMisra #AllahabadHighCourt #Law #LanguageImprovement
Sir, Fascinating indeed. I really wish to delve deeper into the work and style of Shri KL Mishra. I am particularly intrigued by his unique approach and style of argumentation, as the remarks made about him by esteemed individuals such as Seervai, Coyajee, Kanga, and Palkhivala are really captivating.
ReplyDeleteThis is seven part series as you can see in the introduction. In the next post, I will talk about my experience with that great man. Then I will share as some of his habits that made me so good. It will be readers to follow them.
ReplyDeleteSurely, Sir, I would love to read this series. Awaiting.
ReplyDelete