RULING MAY NOT CHOKE MY INTELLIGENCE

This is the sixth post of the series ‘Command Over Language is an Asset’. It recommands watching the best advocates to learn the art - with some experiences of my own.

Nani Palkhivala - picture courtesy Palkhivala Exhibition June 2023 Bombay

Command Over Language Is An Asset

One Sentence Changed The Fate।। Advocate General taught English To Me।। Misfortune of Being Opposed by KL Misra ।। Present Evolves Out Of The Past।। Ruling May Not My Choke Intelligence।। Well Read Person - Best Prepared For Law।।

Nani Palkhivala 

Like KL Misra, Nani Palkhivala is also one of the greatest lawyer of the last century. He started rising in late 1960s, when KL Misra started  declining due to his age. I passed law in 1973 and started practice at Banda district courts under my two uncles. One day in 1974, I heard that Nani Palkhivala was coming to argue a case in the Allahabad High Court regarding interpretation of section 12 of the Income Tax Act. 

I came to Allahabad, went to receive him at the airport, where he enquired if he has only to argue on the interpretation of section 12 and factual side would, be dealt by other advocate.  A bench was specially constituted after lunch to hear him. I was there in the court, my visit to any court room.

Palkhivala opened the bare Act, spoke fluently, flawlessly, and quoted cases, reproducing exact words of the relevant paragraphs from his memory. He proceeded in a logical way and showed what was observed by the bench earlier to oppose the writ petition was so illogical that for any one to say that would mean that the person did not know the ABC of tax law.

It was a spell bound performance. I have yet to witness such performance in any case by any lawyer. The writ petitioner was allowed and the decision is reported in Sri Dwarkadheesh Charitable Trust Vs  ITO 1975 (98) ITR 557: 1975 Tax LR 503: 1974 SCC OnLine All 403

I vowed to become like him but alas, it did not happen :-( However,  a good thing happened. 

I was so inspired that I wrote a letter to him that he replied. This started a long pen-friendship that I cherish. One of his letters to me, about ADM Jabalpur v.  Vs Shiv Kant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207 (see Appendix here) is worth reading.

On the same day, Nani Palkhival also addressed the students and teachers of the University on the lawns of Sir Sunder Lal Hostel. Here he is sitting in the middle with the Law Forum 1973-74 of the hostel. This picture is courtesy my class fellow AP Jain, sitting second from the right. 

SN Kackkar

SN Kackkar was also a very good lawyer and had excellent command over language. He was the advocate General of UP during emergency till HN Bahuguna was the Chief Minister of UP. He defended the emergency and opposed Habeas Corpus cases of the detenu.

During arguments in the Habeas Corpus case, Attorney General Niren Dey  framed two points: The first point was that Article 21 was the sole repository of the right to personal liberty; its enforcement was suspended in toto; and in view of this Habeas corpus was not maintainable; the second point was that in case it was maintainable then what was its scope: according to them there was no scope as Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was amended and no one was entitled to see the grounds of detention. He also said that he would argue the first point followed by the Advocate Generals of the States then VP Raman, Additional Solicitor General will argue the second point followed by the Advocate Generals of the state.

Niren De argued the first point followed by Advocate General for MP then SN Kackkar got up to argue but he did not limit his arguments to the first point but touched the second point as well. This was not liked by VP Raman he came and made mention that SN Kackkar may not argue the second point as the narrative decided by the Attorney General, who was also present in the court.

SN Kackkar very coolly, very softly but very firmly said similar to what follows:

"I am a foreigner to this court and not aware of its traditions but High Court has decided against my client and I am up against that order. I have to act in the best interest of my clients unless I am told not to do so." 

No court, no authority, no law, no narrative even by Attorney General can override the fundamental duty of an advocate,  to represent his client to the best of his ability.

AN Ray appeared helpless, he pondered over a second then said.

“Mr Advocate General, please proceed in best interest of your client.”

My Father Virendra Kumar Singh Chaudhary

In the late 1970s, we had a case before RM Sahai J. My father was late in reaching the court. In the meantime, the other side placed a recent decision of the  Supreme Court reported in Kailash Rai Vs Jai Jai Ram AIR 1973 SC 893, claiming to cover the case. When my father wanted to place some decisions, the judge was not in the mood and said,

“Well, here is Supreme Court decision and must Mr. Chaudhary still argue and waste the time of the court.”

Somehow,  my father persuaded him to see the first line of an Allahabad judgement reported in Laxmi Chand Vs Umkar Mal AIR 1929 All 351. The judge was again very caustic and observed how would a 1929 ruling be relevant to decide a point under Zamindari Abolition Act. But he yielded to read the first line of the ruling that my father had refused to read openly. It read, 

“ A ruling of any High Court is the greatest calamity that can befall on a subordinate court as it chokes every pore of his intelligence.”

As soon as he read it, the judge’s face became tense. There was still 15 minutes to lunch but he pushed his chair back,  rose, opened the door himself, and went to his chamber. Everyone was shocked but after lunch, he came back on dot and smilingly said,

“Let the ruling of the Supreme Court not choke the pores of my intelligence. Mr. Chaudhary, please argue, I will hear you.”

The judge heard my father at length, distinguished the Supreme Court decision and decided the case in our favour. It is reported in  Prabhu Singh v. DDC 1979 All LJ 649: 1979 AWC 265: 1979 RD 158.

In the span of 50 years, I have watched and listened to the finest advocates. Though, I have not been able to achieve their greatness but had I not watched them I would not be one percent of, what I am today. 

It is neither relevant nor material that one is not able to achieve the greatness: the important thing is the effort – the underlying philosophy of Bhagwad Geeta is the importance of Karma, leaving the result in the hands of future.

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि।

#NaniPalkhivala #SN Kackkar #VirendraKumarSinghChaudhary #VKSChaudhary #LanguageImprovement