Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

R.R. KRISHNAA (Legal Manager)     16 April 2010

Tale of two chief justices

Tale of two chief justices

 

Sometime in the 1960s the younger brother of a chief justice of Madras High Court celebrated his Sashtiabhda Poorthi. This family function became the ground for a writ petition against the chief justice questioning his continuation in office. Reason? If the younger one was 60, the chief justice, who was elder to him, must be above 60. He should have already retired as a judge, and how then could he continue in office. The court registry informed the chief justice that a writ petition had been filed on the ground that he could not continue in office. The very next minute the chief justice sent in his resignation.

 

Look at the factual and moral aspects of the case. In the days when the chief justice was born ‘at the start of the 20th century’ no official birth certificate procedure existed. The proof of date of birth used to be the school certificates (usually the SSLC certificate book). He must have been four or five when his parents, while admitting him in school, must have given a wrong date. The chief justice himself had done no wrong, morally or legally. He may have had good legal and factual grounds to defend himself, perhaps even successfully. But obviously he did not think about whether he was morally or legally right. His instantaneous reaction must have been to ask himself whether it was morally acceptable to continue in office when a writ petition questioning his continuation had been filed which was sufficient to deny him the moral authority to sit as a judge. When he raised that question within, the answer was obvious. So he sent in his resignation within minutes rather than hours and days. Since his reaction and consequent resignation was instantaneous, obviously he could have consulted none except his own conscience. This is an inner directed inquiry, which not the law, only higher morals and values promote and guide. In the strict legal sense he could have defended himself in a court, but only at the cost of public norms and private morality. That was Justice Ramachandra Aiyar. He was universally respected as one of the finest judges, with high intellect and equally high integrity, the judiciary had seen.

 

It is a long way from the time of Chief Justice Ramachandra Aiyar to the days of Chief Justice P D Dinakaran, also a judge from the bar at Madras. The villagers of Kaverirajapuram had charged that Justice Dinakaran had grabbed hundreds of acres of public land, intended for waterways and roadways of the village. The media had shown photographs of the fenced land with a signboard bearing the name of the judge. In his report, V Palanikumar, an honest district collector, confirmed the charges of land grabbing against the chief justice. Later, a committee sent by the collegium of the Supreme Court to verify the report of the collector also reportedly agreed with the collector’s version. So, prima facie, charges of land grabbing have been established against Justice Dinakaran. In Tamil Nadu, in many places land grabbers have been arrested under the Goondas Act as it is the explicit policy of the government to treat land grabbers as anti-social elements. So the legal character of Justice Dinakaran’s action needs no further elucidation. But see how Justice Dinakaran has responded to the charges against him.

 

First, or even later, he never thought of resigning on his own when his reputation came under a cloud. Many advocates of the Madras High Court sought his resignation. They appeared before the collegium of judges of the Supreme Court and tendered evidence. As the demands for his resignation became shrill, he steadfastly brushed them aside. When pressure mounted for his sack, the Chief Justice of India said that for action to be taken against Justice Dinakaran, the case against him should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Incidentally, this is the standard of proof, in criminal law, against criminals! Yet obviously under the weight of the evidence on record, the collegium of judges had to ask Justice Dinakaran not to preside over the Karnataka High Court as chief justice, but not before the bar at Karnataka revolted against Justice Dinakaran and physically refused to allow him to attend court. From then, Justice Dinakaran stands virtually in a state of suspended animation as a judge. Meanwhile impeachment proceedings have been initiated in the Rajya Sabha.

 

Now comes the climax. When the collegium of judges advised him to go on leave, Justice Dinakaran refused. The collegium then requested him to accept transfer to Sikkim High Court, the smallest high court with the least number of cases. Justice Dinakaran refused to accede to that request also. Meanwhile the bar association at Gangtok in Sikkim revolted against Justice Dinakaran, justifiably so because, if he was not fit enough to be the Chief Justice of Karnataka, he should be equally considered unfit for Sikkim also. And here comes the anti-climax. When Justice Dinakaran had been asked to go to Gangtok, Justice Barin Ghosh, whose appointment as the Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court had been notified by the president on March 30, had arrived in Gangtok to take oath as chief justice on April 13. The media reported a senior official of the high court of Sikkim as saying that Justice Ghosh would take oath on April 13 as scheduled. How come Justice Dinakaran was requested to go to Sikkim as chief justice almost around the same time when Justice Barin Ghosh had already been notified for the office on March 30 itself? Whatever Justice Dinakaran did or did not do in the cause of the judiciary, he has done a great favour to justice by not going to Gangtok for being sworn in. Had he done so, there would have been two candidates for the same office, waiting to be sworn in on April 13!

 

The Dinakaran story as contrasted with Ramachandra Aiyar’s demonstrates the huge erosion of norms and values in the judiciary. Citizens are entitled to claim the protection of the statute. But judges must lay claim to respect by a higher code — of morals, norms and values, not just protection by law. Even contempt law does not earn respect for the judiciary. One of the most celebrated judicial personalities of the world, Lord Denning, said that no punishment should be inflicted for contempt as, in his words, “insults are best treated with disdain”. In a case, upset at his verdict, a lady litigant threw two law books on him. Lord Denning dodged the missiles to escape being hurt, but refused to punish her for contempt. It is not the law but only high moral values and norms, which the society respects, that will enhance the respect for the judiciary. The Justice Ramachandra Aiyar and Justice Dinakaran cases demonstrate this truth inversely.

 

 

Readers may thank the Author: Shri.S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues



Learning

 2 Replies

Gundlapallis (Advocate)     17 April 2010

A very good comparison to show detoriation of values and integrity of people holding highest positions.  This reminds me of the great saying 'yadha raja tadha praja'.  If we notice carefully in 60's the level of public morale and social attitudes are uncomparable with today's.  The today's public morale is unfortunately only a lip service.  Hook or crook grab the power and amass wealth is the only motto.  The acts of Justice Iyer might have been appreaciated in that 60's society but now in 2010 he will be labelled as a ______ (sorry i cannot say the word, my respect for such a great man will nover allow me to say that)

 

Now the point is why social and moral values among public is detoriating? yadha raja tadha praja what a great truth !!

 

The people behind the wheel of power getting themselves protected even after doing all abject misdeeds against public confidence where a starving man who stole bread finds himself in jail !  Who is responsible for a man .. an Indian .. left to starve?  is that not the Government that should get punished for the starving man?  When it comes to secularism oul leaders fall up and down to upkeep the veda vaakya of our constitution... obviously for votes - any time did they ever think the same constitution also spoke about 'welfare state'? that it is the Government's duty to see that no Indian should starve?  On the other hand the Government prohibits 'begging' - a desperate should not steal, Govt cannot provide him work or money for his existence and at the same time he should also not beg for his stomach and the ridiculoous climax is he cannot even sucide legally !   

 

Still the concept of welfare state exist in the Constitution, mostly unread unlike the concept of 'Secular state"  - We live in hypocritical society and slowly regressing from humanity to animal insticnts - we only recognize power - we respect it - fear it - fall at its feet out of fear.  We have long lost the ability to appreciate the moral standards of Justice Iyer - we have long lost our ability to appreciate ones integrity, sincerity - we now believe such words are only fiction... they dont exist.  Thanks to the contributions to the society by the likes of Justice Dinakaran - their contributions transformed the human society into human forest where human animals are now living and where only the powerful animals are thriving .. ofcourse lawless.  All laws are only for weak animals.  If you see powerful human animal you should run and safeguard your life and property... if you dont run its your fault.. that is the state of law, now. 

 

But who allowed the likes of Dinakaran to grow?  Its our legal system... yes no doubt the legal system - The concept 'everybody is equal before law' what a hypocrite expression??!! As the author of the above article "Tale of two justices" as well said... where this Dinakaran must be standing if "everybody is equal before law"?  He should be facing trial in sessions court at Kancheepuram.

 

For people who occupy such positions the punishment should be left to peoples court - let people decide whether they pelt stones and kill or forgive and let live.  The 'equality before law' justice system should should be available only to common public but not be there for such likes of illegal-people in power,- to save our society, country and humanity and importantly to pass over a quality Human heritage to our next generations and save them from becoming animals right from their birth to live and suvivie on this land.   

 

Its hightime... lets recover from our past mistakes and able ourselves to rewrite the saying as "Yadha praja - tadha raja"

Daksh (Student)     17 April 2010

Dear Mr.R.R.Krishna,

I really appreciate your depiction and chronology of events and happening in such a well corroborative and informative way.

Thanks a tonne.

Best Regards

Daksh


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register