(Continued from last fortnight)

The Memoirs of Justice Natarajan, Part III

The fourth Judge, but by no means the least among the eminent personages with whom I had sat, is Chief Justice K. Veeraswamy. He succeeded Chief Justice M. Ananthanarayanan in the middle of 1969. While practising as a lawyer, he had served as Government Pleader and was then elevated to the Bench. In the course of time, he attained seniority and becamethe Chief Justice. He was a very competent Judge who knew all branches of law. He was extraordinary skilled at grasping the arguments of lawyers, and he could straightaway go to the crux of the matter even in complicated Civil, Constitutional and Taxation Law Cases. In addition to being a versatile Judge, he had the capacity to dictate judgements extempore on the Bench itself, as soon as the hearing of a case was over. Because of all this, there was no need for the lawyers to argue for long, even in complicated cases. Another remarkable feature was that all his judgements were short and brief. Where others would have dictated a judgement running to six or seven pages, Justice Veeraswamy would render his in two or two and half pages without sacrificing any of the relevant details of the case, the arguments put forward by the counsel, the questions of law involved in the matter, and the rationale laid down in earlier judgements of the Supreme Court, High Courts, etc., in similar cases. His legal acumen and competence and capacity were appreciated and respected by all members of the Bar, including giants in the legal profession.

Chief Justice K. Veeraswamy. Picture courtesy: The Hindu.

The working hours in the High Court are from 10:45 am to 1:15 pm, and from 2:15 pm to 4:15 pm. However, Justice Veeraswamy took his seat in Court only at about 11:15 am, and rose by about 1:00 or 1:15 pm. He would again take his seat in Court at 3:00 pm and rise at 4:00 pm. Despite his late sitting and early rising, his disposal would be in the hundreds. That was because of his extraordinary capacity to go into the heart of the matter in every case and deliver judgements immediately after the hearing was over. He never shirked taking up heavy and complicated cases involving constitutional issues or intricate questions of law.

Though Chief Justice Veeraswamy was such a competent and learned Judge, he was accused of one failing: Judges and members of the Bar felt that he did not respect the junior Judge sitting with him in the First Bench of the High Court, and that therefore it was a one-man show. In fact, V. K. Thiruvenkatachari, Advocate General, used to make fun of his treatment of his brother Judges by saying that any decision rendered by Justice Veeraswamy in the First Bench of the High Court could be overruled only by an 11-Judge Bench, joking that Justice Veeraswamy was number 1 and his brother Judge was zero, and therefore the first Bench consisted of 10 Judges, hence the judgements of that Court could be overruled only by an 11-Judge Bench!

It was, and continues to be, the practice for the Chief Justice of a High Court to make his brother Judges sit in rotation with him in the First Court and decide cases. My tum to sit with the Chief Justice came after two and a half years of my elevation. Some members of the Bar and a few of the Judges warned that I would be a mere dummy in the Court, and that I should therefore give some excuse and avoid sharing the First Bench with him. I felt that since the choice of constituting Benches is with the Chief Justice, I could not plead any excuse, and that it was up to me to see to it that my dignity as a junior Judge of the First Bench was not degraded in any manner. Brother Judges and members of the Bar were not convinced by my assurance.

On the very first day I sat with Chief Justice Veeraswamy in the First Court, we heard several matters. After hearing the cases, the Chief Justice dictated the judgements in open court. In one case, I noticed that he made a mistake in the statement of facts and the plea of the appellant before the lower Court. However, I could not correct that mistake immediately, because the correction in open court would have interrupted the dictation of the judgement. During lunchtime, the stenographer brought the judgements dictated by the Chief Justice to my chambers for my signature. The practice was for the Chief Justice to sign the judgements and then send them to the junior Judge for his signature. When the judgement relating to this particular case was given to me, I told the stenographer that I would sign it after discussing the matter with the Chief Justice. The stenographer was aghast, and told me that it was a judgement of the Chief Justice and that I had no option but to sign it. I pointed out to him that it was a judgement of two Judges, though dictated by one, and that I would not sign unless the error contained in it was rectified. I then called my stenographer and dictated the relevant portion in the judgement which required to be corrected. I took the typed note to the Chief Justice and pointed out that there was an error in his judgement which needed correction. He was visibly annoyed and told me that he had never dictated an erroneous judgement, and that he read the papers relating to each case thoroughly. I told him that I had no doubt about it, but I too read the papers thoroughly, and there was a factual mistake which required correction, for otherwise the judgement would be flawed. He took the note prepared by me with contemptuous reluctance and said he would look into it at home. The next morning, when we assembled in his chambers, he profusely apologised, thanked me for pointing out the mistake in the judgement, and told me that thereafter if there was any correction to be made, I could do it myself without referring the matter to him. I told him that that was not the correct way of doing things, because I too could commit mistakes, and that if at all any were found in future, I would bring it to his notice and have the matter set right. From that incident onwards, Justice Veeraswamy gave me all the respect and consideration which a junior Judge sitting with him in the First Court was entitled to have.

In fact, there were some more occasions where Chief Justice Veeraswamy’s special treatment of me was evident. In the First Bench of the High Court, Writ Appeals against Orders passed by single Judges in Writ Petitions come up for admission. If there was merit, the Writ Appeal would be admitted. Otherwise it would be refused admission and dismissed. Before I joined the Chief Justice’s Bench, I was told that the admissions and dismissals of Writ Appeals were a one-man show, i.e. the Chief Justice alone decided whether a Writ Appeal should be admitted or dismissed. However, after I started sitting with him, there were occasions when my views differed from those of the Chief Justice. Whenever a Writ Appeal deserving admission was called, and the lawyer stood up to present the appellant’s case, I used to gently tell the Chief Justice that there was some merit in the Appeal and that the matter required consideration. He would then grant admission to that Writ Appeal. On one occasion, V. P. Raman, Senior Counsel, started arguing a Writ Appeal for admission. The Chief Justice told him that he did not see any merit in that Appeal. Notwithstanding such a statement by the Chief Justice, I told him that there was some force in the contentions and that the Writ Appeal could be given admission for further consideration of the matter. The Chief Justice then told the Counsel in open court as follows:

Well Mr. Raman, I do not see any merit in the Writ Appeal, but my brother sitting with me feels that it deserves consideration. I am therefore admitting the Writ Appeal for detailed hearing.”

All the lawyers in the Court were surprised, if not stunned, by what the Chief Justice said. Later, I came to know that never before had the Chief Justice said in open court that in spite of his own views, he was granting admission to a Writ Appeal just because the junior Judge sitting with him felt that the Writ Appeal deserved admission. From that time onwards, the lawyers openly stated that I was not a silent member of the First Bench headed by the Chief Justice.

In yet another incident, the Chief Justice treated me differently and paid heed to my suggestions. In a matter relating to the State Housing Board, a Writ Petition had been filed against its officials for violation of rules and procedure. The Writ Petition was heard by Justice Ismail, and he allowed the Writ Petition. He also passed strictures against the State Housing Board officials. The State Housing Board preferred a Writ Appeal, and Govind Swaminadhan, Advocate General, appeared for the Writ Appellants. He raised a point which had not been urged before the learned single Judge. It was a very valid one, and on that ground we allowed the Writ Appeal. When the Chief Justice was about to conclude the judgement, Mr. Govind Swaminadhan said that the learned single Judge had unnecessarily passed strictures against the State Housing Board officials and sought that they be set aside by the Appellate Court. Immediately the Chief Justice, without consulting me, added a few more lines as follows:

It has been the tradition and practice of this Court not to pass strictures unnecessarily, because harsh words break no bones. Therefore, we direct expungement of the strictures from the judgement of the learned single Judge.”

After the judgment was typed, the Chief Justice signed the same, and the stenographer brought it to me for my signature. I took the judgement to the Chief Justice after the lunch interval and told him that the portion relating to the expunging of strictures against the State Housing Board officials did not need to be there, because we were allowing the Writ Appeal on a new point which was not raised before the single Judge. I further told the Chief Justice that perhaps, on the materials placed before him, the learned single Judge may have been justified in passing the strictures. I also told the Chief Justice that Justice Ismail, who had passed the strictures, already had a grievance about the Chief Justice, who had written in an earlier Writ Appeal (decided before I joined the First Bench) that “Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in a hackneyed manner.” That observation was made regarding a case where a Writ Petition had been allowed by Justice Ismail but later dismissed by the First Bench in Writ Appeal. Justice Ismail had taken this remark to heart, and said in open court several times that he only knew how to exercise Writ jurisdiction in a hackneyed manner, and that if anyone felt aggrieved by his orders they may go in Writ Appeal to the First Bench and have justice done to him. I mentioned this fact to the Chief Justice, and suggested that the offending portion in the Writ Appeal judgement be deleted. Justice Veeraswamy looked at me for a minute or two and said, “Judge, you are right.” He then took his pen and struck off those two or three lines, and asked me whether I was satisfied with the correction in the judgement. I thanked him for the correction and signed it.

In the evening, while returning home, Justice Ismail asked me whether we, i.e. the First Bench, had sermonised in our judgement that his remarks against the State Housing Board officials were not justified and that harsh words break no bones. Obviously, some lawyers who were present in the First Court and had heard what the Chief Justice had dictated had carried tales to Justice Ismail during the lunch interval. I assured him that the First Bench had not made any such remarks, and that I would have the judgement sent to him for his perusal. The next morning, I called for the judgement and sent it to Justice Ismail. He was surprised to find that the offending two or three lines had been scored off and initialled by the Chief Justice. Justice Ismail then told me that he could hardly believe his eyes, because he was of opinion that the Chief Justice was so arrogant and self-opinionated that he would not change any portion of his judgement for the sake of anyone. Thereafter, Justice Ismail also began to tell other Judges that I was perhaps the only junior Judge in the High Court who could make Justice Veeraswamy change his opinion or make changes in his judgements.

Justice Veeraswamy could have and should have gone to the Supreme Court, as he was a fairly senior High Court Chief Justice. However, he was an egoist and did not want to give up his primacy of place in the High Court and become one among the 21 Judges (the then strength) of the Supreme Court. He always used to say that “Chief Justice is Chief Justice,” and perhaps therefore he felt that he would lose his importance ·and individuality if he went to the Supreme Court. He was thoroughly wrong in his opinion, because a judge of the Supreme Court, though equivalent in rank to a Chief Justice of a High Court, enjoys a slightly higher status and can be in office till the age of 65, unlike Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court who can remain in office only till 62. Judgements of the Supreme Court are the final verdict in any case, and they are binding on all the High Courts in India and become the law of the land. On the other hand, a judgement of the High Court will have binding force only in the state where the High Court is situated, and therefore may or may not be accepted by other High Courts. From that point of view, the Supreme Court has a special status as the Apex Court of the country.”

In not going to the Supreme Court, Justice Veeraswamy erred in more ways than one. As Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, he purchased a house in Kodaikanal and renovated it. During his frequent trips there, he took a liking to a woman belonging to a different caste and married her, an act that was questioned, by his family and friends, the judiciary and the public. On top of this, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also started an investigation against him for acquiring assets beyond his known sources of income. In spite of the CBI investigation, he might have been allowed to continue in office till his retirement in April, 1976, if his son-in-law Justice V. Ramaswamy and some over-zealous lawyers not initiated moves to install a life-size marble statue of him in the High Court premises at the time of his retirement. The news of this move reached the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice of India came down heavily and asked Justice Veeraswamy to go on leave at once in February or March, 1976. He had to comply, and then he was prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After a long number of years, he was cleared of the charges framed against him. Thus came to an inglorious end the judicial career of Justice Veeraswamy.

Though I had high regard and respect for Justice Veeraswamy, I had the unpleasant task of heading a Full Bench which was constituted to hear a petition filed by him for quashing the FIR filed against him by the CBI. I must mention this very special case from my tenure of office as a Judge of the High Court. The matter was referred to a Full Bench of three Judges headed by me. Justice Mohan and Justice V. Balasubramaniam were the other two Judges in the Full Bench.

There were six Judges senior to me, namely Chief Justice Rama Prasad Rao, Justice M.M. Ismail, Justice P. R. Gokulakrishnan, Justice G. Ramanujam, Justice V. Ramaswamy, and Justice C.J.R. Paul. Normally, the Full Bench should have been constituted with three Senior Judges, headed by the senior-most judge, but for one reason or the other, the seniors did not want to hear the case. Of course, Justice V. Ramaswamy could not have been a member of the Full Bench, because Chief Justice Veeraswamy was his father-in-law. Thus, it came to be that I was asked by Chief Justice Rama Prasada Rao to head the Full Bench. The members of the Full Bench took up the assignment because we felt we were not called upon to decide whether the Chief Justice had acquired assets disproportionate to his earnings or not, but only to give a finding on the constitutional and legal questions raised by him. There was also the fact that our decision would not be the final verdict in the case, because the matter would be taken to the Supreme Court by one party or the other. So our Full Bench heard the case and decided by a 2:1 majority (Justice Mohan and I constituting the majority and Justice Balasubramaniam constituting the minority) that the FIR could not be quashed, and the investigation had to be proceeded with. Years later, the majority view taken by me and Justice S Mohan was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Reference to Chief Justice Veeraswamy will not be complete if I do not mention that despite all this, he took the judgement in the correct spirit and did not feel embittered and continued to have a cordial relationship with me. This was perhaps because he had realised that his petition for quashing the FIR filed by the CBI was not a legally sustainable one. He attended my Satabishekam (80th birthday rituals) and blessed me with long life and good health. I too reciprocated his good feelings by attending the wedding reception of his son and congratulating the couple.