A Judgement is not final till it is signed and sealed. It is important for a judge to be open till it is sealed.
This post explains the same with an incident, at an early stage of my career, from the court of Satish Chandra J. (01-09.1924 – 24.01.2000). He was a judge of the Allahabad High Court, when I joined the Bar and retired as the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on 31st August 1986.
This incident affected me in the most profound way. During my judgeship, I never hesitated in changing my view or advising lawyers to file review if on cool deliberation, I thought that my order was wrong. But before I tell you about the incident, a brief biographical sketch of Chandra J.
Satish Chandra J. - Brief Sketch
Chandra J. had his schooling from Annie Besant School and Allahabad Inter College (Agarwal Vidyalay) Allahabad. He completed his law degree from the Allahabad University and joined his father’s chamber in August 1947. His father was later elevated as a High Court judge.
Chandra J. was also elevated as an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on 07-10-63. He became its Chief Justice on 22-03-1978 but was later transferred to the Calcutta High Court. He assumed the charge there on 29.11.1983 and retired on 31-08-1986.
I have had occasion to appear before many judges but none of them were or are as brilliant or as good an administrator as he was. The only problem was that one had to be quick in his court.
Chandra J. was a visionary and changed the landscape of judiciary in many meaningful ways. This is not only my opinion but unanimous opinion of judges and lawyers of that time.
He got the cases at Allahabad categorised so that they may be bunched for easy disposal. He was the first Chief Justice who noticed the deficiencies in the Judicial infrastructure and made leaping efforts to improve the same.
He chaired a committee appointed by the Government of India to examine the problems of arrears and to suggest remedial measures. This was constituted in pursuance of a resolution passed in Chief Justices’ Conference in 1983. This report, known as Satish Chandra Committee report, is the finest report given by any other committee or Law Commission on this aspect.
He also prepared a booklet ‘Manners and Etiquette’ and had it circulated among the judges of the district judiciary. It is still the final word for them. A copy of the same may be seen here.
He was fond of sports and a good cricketer and billiard player. He was fond of gardening and perhaps had one of finest garden among the legal fraternity. His detailed biographical sketch may be seen here.
Some of my friends from Calcutta do not agree with his assessment but they do not take into account two important factors:
- Firstly, Chandra J. had declined Supreme Court judgeship to be the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. He got frustrated and disappointed by his transfer that was not only unnecessary but most unfortunate for the Judiciary in UP.
- Secondly, his prostate problem there. He was operated upon in Bombay. However, the operation was not complete success. He had to go around with a urinary bag.
His performance at Calcutta was affected by the above mentioned factors and should be ignored for judging his contribution and greatness.
Often, one gets the feeling that the judge decided the case without understanding the point. But it never happened in his court. We never got this impression that he did not understand or appreciate our point: though he may not agree with the submissions.
One great quality about him was that he was always open till the end. This was evident in a bunch of eleven special appeals (SPLA 153 to 163 of 1972 Ajodhya Prasad Vs DDC) that I had argued before a bench presided over by him. The other judge was Yashoda Nandan J.
The Incident
Ajodhya Prasad was a Zamindar and claimed the property to be his ‘Sir’. The respondents claimed to be his sub-tenants. Litigation started much before the abolition of Zamindari. After its abolition, Ajodhya Prasad claimed to be its Bhumidhar; whereas, the respondents claimed to be Sirdars.
After, abolition of Zamindari, Ajodhya Prasad filed the suits for ejectment of the respondents. In this suit, there was compromise; the respondents gave up there rights and in turn Ajodhya Prasad agreed to transfer land on payment of Rs. 400 per Bigha. The suits were decided in terms of the compromise.
During consolidation operation, the Respondents alleged the compromise to be illegal and claimed Sirdari rights. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) decided in favour of Ajodhya Prasad. But the single Judge allowed the writ petitions (WPs) of the Respondents and Ajodhya Prasad filed special appeals against that order. The two questions involved in the case were,
- Firstly, whether the earlier compromise in the suit amounted to transfer of Sirdari property - thus, illegal;
- Secondly, whether the consolidation courts had jurisdiction to set aside compromise decree.
I appeared for Ajodhya Prasad, the appellant. Sri SN Verma, Sr Advocate and Sri GN Verma, perhaps the best advocate for land laws appeared for different respondents.
I began my arguments, but the court did not agree with my submissions. Chandra J. started dictating judgement. While the judgement was being dictated, I interrupted to point out, what I thought was a mistake. This angered him. He scolded me and said,
“Come to my house in the evening and I will tell you why it is so”.
The reprimand was so severe that only with great difficulty, I could control my tears. But I realised my mistake: one should never interrupt when the order is being dictated.
After the judgement was dictated and appeals were dismissed. I got up and requested the court to deal with a point that I had argued. Chandra J. asked me if there were rulings on that point. On my affirmative answer, He asked the stenographer to score out the dictation and ordered the case to be unlisted.
The next day, the case could not be taken up but the court reserved the judgement and requested us to file written submissions. The judgement was delivered on 06.10.1978 and both the points were decided in my favour. The court held that compromise does not amount to transfer of Sirdari rights - thus not illegal and the consolidation courts do not have jurisdiction to cancel a decree.
This is a sign of a great judge: they are always open till the end and in case they are wrong, they do not hesitate to correct their mistakes.
#JusticeSatishChandra #GoodJudge #OpenTillEnd
No comments:
Post a Comment