advertisement
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, only the fifth lawyer to be directly elevated to the Supreme Court as a judge, retired from the post on 12 August. Despite a brief judicial career of 7 years, Justice Nariman has authored more than 500 judgments, including 'game-changing' opinion in some landmark constitutional matters.
Justice Nariman's jurisprudence at the Supreme Court is marked with cases which were not only legally complex but also politically charged.
Therefore, we revisit some of those cases to highlight how he cut the clutter, reoriented the focus on the legality, and delivered rulings, on most occasions, that privileged constitutional morality over majoritarian sentiments.
Perhaps one of the most significant judicial legacies Justice Nariman will leave behind is his articulation of the principle that a legislature which swears by the principles of constitutional democracy cannot create a law which is manifestly arbitrary.
Justice Nariman brought life back to the test of 'manifest arbitrariness' test in Shayara Bano vs Union of India ( the triple talaq case), highlighting that the test is inherent in right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
This principle is not only to be found in the triple talaq judgment, but its hand can be seen in Justice Nariman's landmark decision in the Shreya Singhal case in 2015 as well.
While striking down the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, he held that state action should conform to norms which are rational, informed with reasons and guided by public interest.
This is an important step towards ensuring vague laws aren't used to restrict people's freedom of speech.
Justice Nariman never ceased to remind the government that ensuring implementation of court orders is its constitutional obligation. Politically charged cases cannot be an excuse for the Executive to abdicate this duty.
He explained this principle while dissenting from the majority judgment that referred the review of the Sabarimala judgment (in which he had been part of the original decision to declare the discrimination against women devotees unconstitutional) to a larger bench.
While reminding the government that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding not only on all the courts but also on all the branches of the executive, Justice Nariman did not mince words in calling out politicising of court's rulings.
In one of his last judgments for the court, Justice Nariman reaffirmed this commitment to ensuring rulings of the court were strictly complied with.
In a judgment which could act as an important message to politicians, he held 8 political parties guilty of contempt of court for not complying with the court's earlier directions to publish the criminal antecedents of candidates in the recent Bihar elections and to give reasons for putting up candidates with a criminal background.
Some of the most significant yet not as widely popular judgments of Justice Nariman has come from the criminal roster, even though many may view his work on corporate law and insolvency matters as his lasting legacy.
Justice Nariman's judgments on criminal jurisprudence have attempted to instill and uphold the values of accountability and transparency in the exercise of discretion by various agents of the criminal justice system.
The Munawar Faruqui case was a great example of this. The comedian had been in jail for nearly two months with the lower courts and high court denying him bail, but when the matter came before Justice Nariman, he ordered Faruqui's release within minutes, since under the law, the police should never have arrested him in the first place.
Justice Nariman's judgments on criminal justice therefore, can be seen as attempts to quell the clamour that often surrounds such matters, and privilege the procedural protections that all accused have in law over ambiguous narratives of the authorities.
Despite his contributions to human rights jurisprudence of this country, Justice Nariman's track record is not unblemished. One of the most glaring blots on that track record is his judgment in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) case in 2014.
It is because of this judgment that the NRC process was initiated in Assam, at the directions of Justices Nariman and Ranjan Gogoi – even though the judges referred the provision of the Citizenship Act that allowed it to a larger bench. The NRC exercise has led to uncertainty and suffering for lakhs of people in Assam, and remains inconclusive even now.
What makes this galling was that the Supreme Court, when ordering the NRC, had not sought any actual data on the problem of illegal immigration in Assam
In 2004, the Union Home Ministry had made a statement before the Parliament giving out the number of allegedly illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the country – a staggeringly large figure of 50 lakh.
However, a clarification was added to that statement soon after by the Ministry, which stated that the reported figures were not based on any comprehensive or sample study but were based on hearsay and that too from interested parties.
Advocate Aman Wadud, also notes the problematic reliance in the judgment of an older Supreme Court case from 2005 in the Sarbananda Sonowal case, which again was primarily based on a communal and xenophobic report of former bureaucrat SK Sinha.
In his report Sinha had said that, "The influx of these illegal migrants is turning these districts into a Muslim majority region. It will then only be a matter of time when a demand for their merger with Bangladesh may be made."
Despite the NRC judgment, most senior lawyers view Justice Rohinton Nariman's tenure as a remarkable one.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora told The Quint that Justice Nariman had been a "game changer".
Former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and senior advocate Dushyant Dave revisited his days of arguing before the Bench of Justice Nariman. Dave said that Justice Nariman had proved himself to be one of the finest Judges in the history of the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde commended Justice Nariman for his refusal to deviate from the strictures and bounds of the law, even in the most politically charged or controversial cases.
Referring to his contributions to insolvency law, a key aspect of commercial law and a tricky one given the teething problems with the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh called Justice Nariman, 'a one man army'.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined