MODULE 3

CHIEF JUSTICE

A brief look at this "robed brother" on the Bombay bench may be

elevating. The greatness of a Chief Justice, his firmness against so
obstinate a Chief Minister as Morarji Desai, his endearing relations with
the Bar are so edifying that every young advocate must read the Roses.
Humility and cordiality, never any ill-temper, harmonious cooperation,
luminuous exchanges in forensic proceedings, with truth and justice as
the goal, an open mind without pre-conceived made-up perceptions
when hearing a case - that is the finest tribute a judge can claim and
Chagla had that privilege.
An anecdote by Chagla will prove this point.
I remember sitting with Shah, who in course of time became the Chief
Justice of India, and who very often, as soon as an appeal was called out
would start cross-examining the advocate. I would interrupt and say: "I
have a very learned and illustrious brother sitting with me. He knows all
about the case. I do not know anything. Please open the appeal, and tell
me what it is all about". The least a judge can do is to let the lawyer at
least open the appeal, state the relevant facts, and lay down propositions
of law. Then, and only then, should he take the matter in hand, go to the
root of the question, and try and get the lawyer to concentrate on that
particular decisive aspect of the question.
The current impatient tribe of judges have much to imbibe from this
superlative sentinel of justice. An irascible mediocrity on the Bench with
pretentious hubris is a menace to judicial justice.
M. C. Chagla is remembered by posterity as a great judge. The enquiry
into the Life Insurance Corporation (virutally against T. T.
Krishnamachari) was memorable because Chagla conducted it with such
independence and unpleasant impartiality, that the Mundhra enquiry still
remains a marvel of public enquiries, annoying Nehru a great deal,
though. What a contrast to the present crowd of judges, sitting and
retired, who head commissions and produce enquiry reports which are
forgotten and often deserve to be forgotten and frustratingly
unimplemented, even unpublished. The Mundhra enquiry became a
great event and even Dr. Rajendra Prasad regarded the report "as one of
the best judgments ever delivered" and expressed the opinion that even
if half a dozen of the best judges of the world have been brought
together, they could not have produced a more judicial and judicious
document."
Chagla was appointed an ad hoc judge of the International Court of
Justice. There again he made a mark. A point of remember in the
contemporary context of judicial hunger for more, is the response of
Chagla to the fee for his service at the International Court.
"When I was asked to go to the International Court, an inquiry was made
of me about what fees I would charge, and I was told afterwards that the
Government expected that I would mention a fairly large amount. But
they were all surprised when they learned that I would charge no fees
and that it was a privilege to represent the Government of my country in
a case which was very dear to my heart, and for which I had fought as
far back as 1946 when I first went to the United Nations."
What a pathetic contrast today to behold the unedifying spectacle of
retired judges, with manipulative tactics and "stoop to conquer"
sophistries, trying to secure "Commissions" and obliging the
governments with unhappy Reports which go into oblivion unwept,
unhonoured and unsung. Judicial dignity is too frequently becoming a
negotiable commodity, and clinging to Commissions has become a
chronic addiction.
The magnificent functionalism of Chagla, when the country's full history
comes to be written, is his performance in the United Nations and South
Africa, in his successfully diplomatic role in the United States and the
United Kingdom. Of course, M. C. Setalvad, in his autobiography, has
been critical of Chagla himself when he resigned from his judicial
office, to become India's Ambassador to the United States: I quote:
"He - (meaning myself) - was so keen to get into politics that soon after
the Law Commission Report was signed by him, and even before the ink
of his signature on the Report had dried, he resigned his office to
become India's Ambassador to the United States. His action was
characteristic of the self-seeking attitude of many of our leading men".
And yet Chagla did not have any rancour, and mentions that Setalvad
was kind to him and recommended his name for the Chief Justiceship of
India and the judgeship of the international court. Chagla met Setalvad
and asked him why natural justice had been jettisoned by the latter not
caring to ask the former about the circumstances leading to his
acceptance of the offices mentioned above. The fact remains, Chagla
was a success in his assignments and that is what matters for the
country. Diplomacy is a difficult art, especially when we deal with a
mighty power like the U.S.. Assignment in America to win confidence
and foster friendship is a hard task, especially with India's dependencia
syndrome. Chagla was versatile excellence and touched none he did not
adorn.
Should judges belong to the aloof elite class cocooned in paper- logged
insularity? Chagla answers:
On the other hand, a judge might equally take the view: "Because I was
a judge, I do not cease to be a citizen. I should take a live interest in the
contemporary scene. I should play my full part in all the activities,
which concert the general welfare of my fellow citizens.In short, I
should become a part of the life of my city and even of my State and my
country, in a way that does not, of course, affect my official role as a
judge". Having had a political background, and being keenly interested
in public life, and in intellectural, cultural and artistic matters, I decided
not to be the Chief Justice, but also a public spirited citizen of the city in
which I lived.
Judicial recluses must remember Chief Justice Earl Warren: Our judges
are not monks or scientists, but participants in the living stream of our
national life, steering the law between the dangers of rigidity on the one
hand and of formlessness on the other. Our system faces no theoretical
dilemma but a single continuous problem how to apply to ever-changing
conditions the never-changing principles of freedom.