Whether an Unauthorized Building is Entitled to Tax Exemption if it is otherwise Entitled :  Unanswered Questions

(By V.N. Haridas, Advocate High Court of Kerala)
E-mail : slclawyers@gmail.com   Mob. 9497065695

The recent Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala with respect to the imposition of property tax raises certain questions.₁ This article is to raise the questions that may have escaped the attention of the Court while considering the Writ Petition. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is the Manager of an Aided Upper Primary School for which the Chief Town Planner granted approval of layouts to reconstruct a 3-storied building by adding one more floor with an extent of 3100.84 square metres of plinth area. The petitioner school was demanded by the Municipal Corporation to pay property tax during the period when the constructions were unauthorized constructions and not regularized. The petitioner contended that they are entitled to get an exemption from payment of taxes under S.235(b)of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The Hon’ble Court, interpreting Section 242, concluded that, Rule 3 and Rule 20(3) of the Surcharge Rules, 2011 stipulate that the demand is possible  only when the owner is liable to pay the property tax and not when it is exempted under the provisions of the Act and S.242 speaks about the liability of the owner who constructed the building unlawfully to pay the sum of property tax that would have been paid, had the said building been constructed unlawfully and in the instant case there is no liability of property tax on the building in question and the fact that the petitioner is not liable to pay the property tax is evident from the fact that for the rest of the floors except one.

Where unauthorized construction was alleged and which was subsequently regularized, there is no demand to pay the property tax. The Court, accordingly holds that the petitioner is not liable to pay the property tax as it is exempted from payment of property tax under S.235 (b) of the Act. The question remains unanswered: When is a building exempted from the property tax? If a building was constructed that remains unauthorized for the reasons envisaged under S.242, whether the Municipality imposes a tax under S.242 or it will be exempted under S.235. As per the judgment, tax cannot be imposed under S.242 for the reason that the building in question is “supposed to be “exempted” under S.235 of the Act.

The fundamental issue herein is that to be entitled to an exemption under S.235, the building must be “used” for any of the purposes enumerated under S.235 of the Act now when a building can be made available for “use” as per the Municipality Act. According to R.4(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, no person shall construct, reconstruct, make additions extensions, or alterations to any building or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit from the Secretary. R.4(3) further states no person shall change the occupancy of an existing building from one group to another without first obtaining a permit from the secretary.

After completing the construction in accordance with the approved plan and in compliance with the building rules, the person has to apply for an occupancy certificate. The permit shall be issued in accordance with the occupancy of the building. Accordingly, the building can be used only after obtaining an occupancy certificate and numbered the building. As per S.242(5) of the Municipality Act, the municipality shall not grant a permit or license to use the building that was constructed unlawfully. If that is so, the question of tax exemption would arise only after the lawful completion of the building. In other words, a Municipality can grant exemption to a building if it is lawful. An unauthorized building that was granted a special number shall in no way entitled to get exemption from the property tax. If that is so, the Municipality is very well empowered to collect tax under S.242 even if a portion of the building is already granted exemption. This is more acceptable in the light of S.242 (2). Under S.242 (2) the secretary shall proceed under S.406 against an unauthorized building and nothing contained in S.242 (1) shall preclude the secretary from proceeding with such actions.

It is reiterated by the settled position of law that exemption can only be granted to the buildings which are utilized for the purposes mentioned.₂  There is another explicit provision in the Municipality Act that no building can be used for any purpose without obtaining occupancy and numbered the building. If that be so, the reason that the building constructed was intended to be for an educational institution that might have obtained tax exemption shall not be a reason to escape from the imposition of tax under S.242(1) of the Act.

It is also worthwhile to note here that as per R.11 (2), the person claiming property tax exemption has to submit the return in Form-2a. One of the details to be furnished along with this specific form is the building number. Only after obtaining a valid occupancy and building number that a person can apply for tax exemption under this rule. 

Therefore, for the reason that, if a building constructed lawfully, it could have been given tax exemption shall not be reason for precluding a Municipality for proceeding against an unauthorized building including the imposition of tax under S.242(1). Unfortunately, these aspects have not been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court while deciding the matter which resulted in a judgment that goes against the spirit of the Act.

Foot Notes

1.Manager, Varam Upper Primary School v. Kannur Municipal Corporation (2024 (5) KLT 572).

2. Panayappilly Sree Narayana Guruswami Trust v. Corporation of Kochi (2022 (4) KLT 874).

Law Making for Breaking by Courts, without any Accountability

(By Adv. S. Balachandran (Kulasekharam), Thiruvananthapuram)
E-mail : balachand59@gmail.com     Mob. 9387734030

1. The judiciary is the master, protector, and enforcing authority of the rule of law. Nowadays, the general public holds faith, belief in impartiality, and trust only in the judiciary. Many people are under the impression that they will receive immediate relief from the judiciary, which is why law-abiding citizens refrain from taking the law into their own hands to address grievances.

2. “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a compelling yet unfulfilled aspiration that often remains a mere phrase within the legal system. The higher judiciary, through various thoughtful and impactful pronouncements, has made several decisions aimed at minimizing the duration of litigation. It has formulated mandates to expedite proceedings and ensure timely relief. However, these mandates often remain unimplemented, gathering dust in the archives. Subordinate courts frequently disregard the directives of the higher judiciary, and no mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance. Moreover, these decisions lack provisions for penal consequences in cases of non compliance. As a result, trial courts often turn a blind eye to these mandates, effectively violating them without accountability.

3. In Quantum Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2015 (4) KLT Suppl. 8 (SC) = 2015 SCC 10 602),decided on 1st July 2015, the Honorable Supreme Court held that “the court shall make an endeavor to finally dispose of the application for a temporary injunction within 30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction is granted.” However, in practice, most trial courts, after granting temporary injunctions without notice to the defendants, take months or even years to dispose of such matters on merit, despite urgent requests from defendants. The verdict lacks provisions for penal consequences in cases of non compliance. Consequently, this decision is routinely ignored or violated by trial courts. The absence of clear consequences for non compliance and liabilities imposed on errant courts renders this decision a toothless directive, existing merely as an inert provision in legal statutes.

4. Similarly, in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.Chellappan (2000 (3) KLT OnLine 1052 (SC) = 2000 (7) SCC 695), decided on 19th September 2000, the Honorable Supreme Court held that “if an ex parte order of injunction is not disposed of on merit within one month from the date of appearance of the defendants, an appeal from that ex parte order of injunction will lie to the District Court.” However, when this option is pursued, the matter often languishes in the District Court for years. Furthermore, trial courts tend to refrain from passing orders in such interlocutory applications, citing the pendency of the matter before the District Court. This situation exacerbates delays, leaving parties to suffer due to judicial inaction or procedural lapses. It is a well-established principle of law that no party should be made to endure hardship due to the court’s inaction or failure to adhere to procedures established by law.

In Rahul Sui Shaw v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021 (3) KLT 235 (SC) = 2021 (2) KLT OnLine 1050 (SC)), decided on 22nd April, 2021, the Honorable Supreme Court, by invoking Articles 141, 142, 144, and 227 of the Constitution of India, directed that “execution proceedings must be completed within six months from the date of filing, with extensions allowed only by recording reasons in writing for such delays. Furthermore, the Court instructed the High Courts to reconsider and update all rules relating to the execution of decrees under their powers within one year from the date of the order. To expedite execution proceedings”, the Supreme Court laid down 16 specific conditions. However, this decision remains a silent and unfulfilled directive. None of the execution courts have complied with these directions, and the High Court of Kerala, to date, has not taken steps to fulfill the prescribed conditions. Execution petitions continue to take years, and the Supreme Court’s dictum remains repeatedly violated without consequence.

6. In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Vilasini(2022 (3) KLT 924 (SC)), decided on 13th June 2022, the Honorable Supreme Court emphasized that “once a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit, the trial court must proceed suo motu to draw up the final decree. The Court held that there is no need for separate final decree proceedings; instead, the court should list the matter for action under Order XX Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code immediately after the preliminary decree”.

a) The Supreme Court further directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, who were instructed to circulate the directions to the concerned trial courts.

b) The Court observed that litigants seek actual relief, not merely paper decrees. For instance, in money suits, litigants expect to recover money; in partition suits, they expect possession of property. However, the current system often forces parties to undergo multiple proceedings, including preliminary decree proceedings, final decree applications, and execution processes, exhausting their resources and delaying justice for decades.

c) The Supreme Court highlighted that by the time a party secures a preliminary decree, they often lack the finances or energy to pursue final relief, contributing to considerable delays and undermining the civil justice system’s credibility. Both courts and lawyers should prioritize final decree proceedings and executions as much as the original suits.

d) The proverbial observation that “the difficulties of a litigant begin when they obtain a decree” remains relevant. Success in a suit is meaningless unless the party obtains actual relief.

7. Under Section 24 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, it is stipulated that final orders in any proceedings should be passed within four months from the date of appearance of the parties, as far as practicable. However, this provision has become practically ineffective and warrants a constitutional review.

8. It is fortunate that most poor litigants remain unaware of these systemic shortcomings. If litigants were fully informed of these issues and began conducting their cases independently, the judiciary would struggle to address their grievances effectively. The loyalty of advocates to the judiciary ensures that these systemic problems remain largely unchallenged.

9. The Honorable Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the principle that “Lex non cogit ad impossibilia — the law does not compel a person to do what is impossible.”
In 2024 (5) KLT 111, the Court reaffirmed this principle, emphasizing that no one is bound to perform the impossible.

In conclusion, I hope the Honorable Supreme Court continues to deliver such landmark judgments, even as the trial courts and other judicial bodies persist in violating them. This ongoing disconnect underscores the urgent need for reform to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice is both timely and effective.

Administrative Indifference to Mass Gatherings

(By Hariraj M.R., Senior Advocate, High Court of Kerala)
Email : harirajmr@gmail.com     Ph.: 9447072461

“The greatest failure of all is the failure to act when action is needed”.—John Wooden

The tragic incident involving Smt.Uma Thomas, Member of the Legislative Assembly, has once again underscored the negligence surrounding safety measures at public events. The immediate fallout has sparked discussions about the organizers’ failure to prevent such an accident. These conversations, predictably, will dominate the media for a short time. Social media may extend the discourse, but if history is any guide, the fervor will fade, leaving the root issues unresolved — until the next tragedy.

In 1999, a devastating stampede at Sabarimala claimed 53 lives. Public outrage was swift. A judicial commission was established, which recommended urgent safety improvements. Yet, these recommendations fell by the wayside as the event faded from public memory.

Twelve years later, on January 14, 2011, another stampede at the same location took 106 lives. Once again, the response was limited to declarations and token measures. In those 12 years, little had been done to address the glaring risks.

The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), in its 2014 guide on managing crowds at mass gatherings, emphasized:

“Crowd disasters are, in general, man-made and entirely preventable with proactive planning and flawless execution by well-trained personnel”.

Yet, governments at all levels have failed to implement and enforce mandatory safety protocols for mass gatherings. The Institute of Land and Disaster Management in Kerala published guidelines in 2015 specifically for safety at “religious gatherings”. Unfortunately, these guidelines remain just that—recommendations, often ignored. The suggested standard operating procedures are rarely implemented, reflecting a pattern of systemic apathy.

Curiously, these guidelines apply only to religious gatherings, as if other events are immune to such risks. Public gatherings—whether in theaters, exhibition grounds, or marathons—are equally vulnerable. The glaring issue is the absence of legally binding provisions mandating safety measures for any mass event.

A chilling example of this negligence is the 2023 tragedy at Cochin University of Science and Technology, where four lives were lost. As usual, there was outrage, cases were filed, and directives were issued to revise “campus event protocols”. However, no protocol with statutory authority existed then — or exists now — for mass gatherings in Kerala, whether on campuses, in public spaces, or at religious events.

The NDMA guidelines identify poor guard railings as a common structural cause of accidents at such events. Tragically, Smt.Uma Thomas’s severe injury was due to a complete lack of proper barricades, compounded by the presence of a poorly constructed, unauthorized structure. Even more appalling was the absence of basic medical facilities on-site. She had to be carried away without adequate first aid or a stretcher—an unthinkable lapse in an event hosting thousands.

Every such incident triggers criticism from uninvolved quarters and defensiveness from organizers. Yet, the underlying truth is undeniable: as a society, we are indifferent to safety. We resist safety mandates—whether helmets, seat belts, or crowd control measures. When accidents occur, we engage in predictable debates, which dissipate as soon as another issue grabs our attention.

The governments must act decisively. A robust statutory framework for mass gatherings is urgently needed. This framework must include the following key elements to ensure public safety:

a. Comprehensive Crowd Control Measures:Clear statutory provisions should mandate the use of proper barricades, designated entry and exit points, maximum capacity limits for venues, and emergency exit protocols. Advanced crowd management technologies, such should also be employed to predict and prevent overcrowding.

b. Effective Risk Assessment and Management: Every event should undergo a thorough risk assessment before it is approved. This should include identifying potential hazards, assessing the venue’s structural integrity, and evaluating emergency preparedness. Event organizers must be required to submit detailed safety plans to regulatory authorities for approval.

c. Interagency Co-ordination:Collaboration between law enforcement, disaster management authorities, medical services, and local administrative bodies need to be ensured for pre-event planning, realtime monitoring, and post-event assessments to ensure accountability and continuous improvement. A body with inter departmental representation must be tasked with the responsibility of approving such gatherings and imposing conditions on the organisers.

d. Rapid Response Mechanisms:Emergency medical facilities, including first-aid stations, ambulances, and trained paramedics, must be mandatory at all large gatherings. A well-defined evacuation plan should be in place, with rehearsals conducted to ensure seamless execution during an emergency. Trained hands must be ensured onsite for effective response without delay.

e. Strict Legal Accountability: Laws governing mass gatherings must impose stringent penalties for negligence, including fines, suspension of licenses, even without any accident occurring and, in severe cases, criminal charges must be brought against organizers and officials responsible for lapses.

f. Learn from Mistakes :Every accident or mishap must lead to a detailed investigation and study based on which the protocols for safety are continuously revised.

g. Public Awareness Campaigns: Awareness campaigns should promote responsiblebehaviour, such as avoiding overcrowding, following signage, and adhering to safety guidelines. Attendees must be empowered to report safety violations without fear of reprisal.

Action must be purposeful and swift. Lives lost in preventable tragedies are a permanent reminder of our collective failure to prioritize safety. With political will and administrative commitment, these measures can transform how mass gatherings are organized, making them safer for everyone. Action must be purposeful and swift, for, as George Santayana warned,

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 Delayed Verdicts in Reserved Judgments – Some Judicial Dimensions

(By O.V. Radhakrishnan, Senior Advocate, High Court of Kerala)
Email : ovrradhika@yahoo.com    Ph.: 0484 – 2390318

‘Delayed verdicts in reserved judgments’ is a constitutional conundrum for want of suitable measures in the Constitution specifying a dead-line for delivery of judgment from the date the case is reserved for judgment. The constitution does not put a strict time-limit on the delivery of judgment once the entire process of participation in the justice delivery system is over.  The litigants suffer persecution for justice stake on account of the inordinate, unexplained and negligent delay in pronouncing the judgment.  I should like to include a quote from  Walter S.Landor “Delay of justice is injustice.”   

In State of Orissa v. Binapairi Dei¹  the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “If there is a power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power.  If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity.  That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.” When a litigant approached the Court for getting his grievances redressed and is made to wait for judgment after arguments on both sides are concluded and reserved the case for judgment to an uncertain future is disastrous.  The pronouncement of the judgement is a part of the justice dispensation system and the delay in disposal of cases may shake every confidence in the judicial system which is tragically ignored by some Judges.  

A judgment of distant days offends against the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, that an act of the court shall prejudice none. The ‘inordinate, unexplained and negligent delay’ in protracting the pronouncement of the judgment for the period ranging from 4 months to 12 months and above since the date of posting the case for judgment is highly undesirable, bad in law and infringes the objectives of Delivery of Justice and its Speedy Reach.

In R.C.Sharma v. Union of India²the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled: “12...........Nevertheless, we think that an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances is highly undesirable even when written statements are submitted.  It is not unlikely that some points which the litigant considered important may have escaped notice.  But, what is more important is that litigants must have complete confidence in the results of the litigation.  This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments. Justice, as we have often observed, must not
only be done but must manifestly, appear to be done.” 

In Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani v. HPA International³ the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “A long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parities to a case.  Moreover, the appellants whose appeal have been dismissed by the High Court may have the apprehension that the arguments raised at the Bar have not been reflected or appreciated while dictating the judgement – nearly after five years.” 

In Anil Rai v. State of Bihar⁴the Apex Court ruled: “4. It has been held time and again that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done.  Similarly, whereas justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even worse than that. ..........but once the entire process of participation in the justice delivery system is over and the only thing to be done is the pronouncement of judgment, no excuse can be found to further delay for adjudication of the rights of the parities, particularly when it affects any of their rights conferred by the Constitution under Part III. ”     “7.  Adverse effect of the problem of not pronouncing the reserved judgments within a reasonable time was considered by the Arrears Committee constituted by the Government of India on the recommendation of the Chief Justice’ Conference.  In its report of 1989-90, Chapter VIII, the Committee recommended that reserved judgments should ordinarily be pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date conclusion of the arguments.  If, however, a reserved judgment is not pronounced for a period of three months from the date of conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice was recommended to be authorised to either post the case for delivering judgment in open court or withdraw the case and post it for disposal before an appropriate Bench.”  “10. Under the prevalent circumstances, in some of the High Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am sure, shall be followed by all concerned, being the mandate of this Court.  Such guidelines, as for the present, are as under:

(i)   The Chief Justice of the High Court may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.

(ii)  That Chief Justice of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.

(iii)On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter.  The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information.  Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.

(iv)Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.  Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

(v)  If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments.  It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.

 11. We hope and trust that the above guidelines shall be strictly followed and implemented, considering them as self-imposed restraints.”

Regarding the aspect of delay in pronouncing judgments after a conclusion of arguments, Thomas J reiterated the above guidelines for providing added emphasis to them.  It has been clarified that the above enumerated measures are intended to remain only until such time as Parliament would enact measures to deal with the problem. 

The financial cost to be incurred by the litigants as a result of releasing a case after it has been heard over a long period and judgement has been reserved compounds not merely the delay but also expense for parties to incur to engage a counsel for a fresh round of hearing/s which is an aspect deserves serious consideration.

We may note at this point that the Constitution of India remains unexpressed regarding the contingency when Supreme Court and High Court Judges do not pronounce judgments promptly. It is necessarily for the obvious reason that the founding fathers of the Constitution reposed great trust and confidence on the sense of responsibility and accountability of the Supreme Court and High Court Judges occupying the seat of justice in discharging their constitutional obligations. The Judges will have to hold to the trust and confidence reposed on them and are all the more accountable for delivering judgments with promptitude.

Article 226(3) of the Constitution lays down that when a party against whom an ex parte interim Order is made and that party makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such Order, the High Court shall dispose of that application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of the such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim Order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated. Article 226(3) is confined to ex parte interim Orders only and does not cover cases where ex parte interim Order is not initially granted. A provision unprovided for in the Constitution fixing a time-frame between the date of final hearing of a case and the date of delivery of the judgment arouses much public concern and disconcert to the litigants. It is for the Parliament to exercise constituent power to provide a suitable provision in the Constitution to ensure that delay in justice delivery system is not caused. Unreasonable delay in handing down judgment every so often makes the final decision of the Court completely unpredictable wild card.

Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking that the Judges might have acted with unwarranted casualness and indifference. Sometimes, the Judges themselves forget points of vital importance and points of details argued at the time of hearing and the arguments developed brick by brick become obliterated by passage of time. The lessons made manifest by experience are that the Judges forget the details of the facts and niceties of the legal points advanced when the interval between the date of hearing of the case and the date of judgment is too long.  The judges have prodigious deal of time for delivery of judgments at their disposal.  And yet, reserved judgments continue, in the words of the Supreme Court itself, to “remain consigned to hibernation.”   

The blighting effect of reserving judgements to an undated future was considered by the Arrears Committee constituted by the Government of India on the recommendation of the Chief Justices’ Conference. The Committee in its Report (1989-1990) published by the Supreme Court of India-1990 recommended:  RESERVED JUDGEMENTS – STATUTORY LIMIT FOR PPRONOUNCEMENT – “8.27 Reserved judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments.  If, however, a reserved judgment is not pronounced for a period of three months from the date of the conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice may either post the case for delivering judgment in open court, or withdraw the case and post it for disposal before an appropriate Bench.  It is desirable than appropriate rule or statutory provision is made in this behalf.” 

Indubitably, pronouncement of judgments promptly is an essential attribute of speedy justice. Constant delay and equivocation affect the judicial business which should be dispatched with swiftness. High Courts and Supreme Court are untrammelled by any rule or law regarding the period for pronouncement of judgments or orders but is only trammelled by judicially evolved rules of conscience in the absence of a provision in that behalf in the Constitution.

This desideratum is feasible provided Parliament vest with the constituent power under Article 368 of the Constitution to amend the Constitution add a provision prescribing time-limit for delivery of judgement since the date the case is reserved for judgement after final hearing of the case. The necessity to deliver judgments immediately after the hearing is over, is sine qua non of   the concept of the rule of law.

 It’s high time for the Parliament to exercise its constituent power to amend the Constitution to meet the situational needs and to provide for the particular situation to ensure just delivery of justice.  It is the responsibility of the legal system to provide its seekers justice, in letter and spirit and that the delivery of justice should be reasonable, quick and just but never without quality.  It is indispensable for the system to survive and to go on.

Foot Notes:

1.  State of Orissa v. Binapairi Dei (1967 KLT OnLine 1228 (SC) = AIR 1967 SC 1269).

2.  R.C.Sharma v. Union of India  (AIR 1976 SC 2037).

3. Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani v. HPA International (2000 (1) KLT SN 50 (C.No. 56) SC = (2000) 2 SCC 13).

4. Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001 (3) KLT SN 15 (C.No. 21 (SC) = (2001) 7 SCC 318). 

Aim at the Stars; For there are Plenty of them

(By Kaleeswaram Raj, Lawyer, Supreme Court of India)
E-mail : kaleeswaramraj@gmail.com,  Mob. 9446360675

(Edited text of the Keynote Address Delivered at the Convocation Ceremony for the Graduated Students of 2024 - 25 Batch of Government Law College, Ernakulam held on January 4,2025, at Kochi)

Dear Principal Dr.Bindu M.Nambiar, Honourable Judges -- JusticeA.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Sophy Thomas, Justice Abdul Hakhim, Justice Syam Kumar and Justice Easwaran and other dignitaries on and off the dias, my Dear Students, for whom today’s function is intended, and all the Teachers, Staff Members, Friends, Brothers, and Sisters,

It gives me immense pleasure to engage with the students and teachers of this legendary institution that was established in 1874 which celebrates its 150th anniversary. I thank the organisers of the event as well as the institution for this  benevolent gesture.

This function reflects something special for the students. It demonstrates the persistent care and concern of the teachers at the college for the future of the outgoing students. The fine qualities of the conventional legal education in India are yet to be properly identified and encouraged. I had an intense personal relationship with Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon, who, by way of National Universities, motivated the whole nation to take legal education more seriously. But even according to Prof. Menon, in the field of litigation, lawyers from conventional colleges are often as good as those from the so-called premier institutions in terms of ability and professional success in litigation.  The reasons behind this phenomenon are worth exploring, with a critical approach, to improve our means further.

Let me also put it bluntly: The students from the conventional law colleges do well in the courts in India, ranging from the trial courts to the Supreme Court. They are successfully competing with their colleagues from the National Law Universities and other similar centers of excellence. I believe that the conventional virtue of the traditional system offers a lot in understanding the realities of life and the society around us. The sense of freedom in these institutions and the humane and organic relations cultivated here make us   better students of law and life. These institutions help to develop the instincts in the students to know the client, the opponent, the judge, and the society, in a much better way.  Going by what David Pannick said, “the task of the advocate is to be argumentative, inquisitive, indignant or apologetic-as the occasion demands-and always persuasive on behalf of the person who pays for his voice”(Advocates, Oxford University Press, 1993). I dare to supplement Pannick by saying that many of the conventional law colleges help developing these traits in the youngsters abundantly and  the courts in India tender an empirical evidence for this statement.

I welcome you to the magnificent world of law. I would particularly welcome you to the area of litigation, the most dynamic manifestation of a person’s life in law. You might read Learning the law by Granville Williams (Thomson Reuters, South Asian Edn 2022) which is always regarded as a beginner’s classic across the globe, that would guide you to the multiple career options based on your legal acumen. Yet, this is a work primarily in the British context. I would prefer to give you some Indian tips for a splendid career in litigation.

 • You are in the process of learning and evolving every day. Do the hard work which is at the most solid and reliable foundation for your career.

• Money is only a bye - product of the profession, not its aim. Vincent van Gogh famously said – “Your profession is not what brings home your weekly paycheck, your profession is what you are put here on earth to do, with such passion and such intensity that it becomes spiritual in calling”.

• Respect the judges, yet please do not be afraid of them! You get the confidence based on your homework. That equalises you with the Bench. That facilitates a dialogue in court, that enhances the quality of judicial democracy. Be bold. As Jurist H.M.Seervai was usually to say, courage is the greatest virtue in lawyering, for without courage, there is no truth. Let the boldness be grounded on surer foundation of learning and erudition. It should not be the shallow enthusiasm of an upstart. Be thorough with the facts; be updated in law. Have a photographic assimilation of materials placed before the court. And also, place everything relevant in court.

 • You are doing not merely a job. Your position is between the State and the citizen. You do the emancipatory function of uplifting the citizen from the clutches of an aggrandising State. Recalcitrant executive of modern times, across the world, make the lawyer’s job pivotal.

• Never think that the constitutional law manifests only in the higher judiciary. A criminal trial or bail plea necessarily involves issues of liberty and other fundamental rights. In the broad sense of the phrase, every lawyer is a constitutional lawyer. When Article 22 of the Constitution speaks about the arrested person’s right to be consulted with/defended by a legal practitioner, it indicates the fundamentality of the profession.

• Choose your first office wisely. Ensure that you get opportunities to learn and to grow up. Reasonable remuneration is not a bounty for a junior lawyer. Create your space in the office and make yourself indispensable for the firm that accommodates you. Discover that wonderful reciprocity! Let your life and career be useful not merely to yourself and your family, but for the institution of judiciary and the society at large.

• Concentrate on quality research. Find out the knack for legal drafting. In the Supreme Court, very often it is the draft of the Special Leave Petition that decides its fate during the admission hearing, rather than the legal arguments by the counsel. Pleadings make the foundation of the case for either side. An omission to deny an averment in the plaint could be fatal. This, I learnt 35 years ago. Even today, quite frequently, across the country, courts are told about lack of denial of certain plaint averments.  This means that the first principles are eternal. Learn them, follow them, evoke them, and practise them.

• Read the classics. They have the potential to transform you. When I did not have anything worth doing during my initial days, I asked my senior to give me some tasks. He gave me the Posthumous work by P. R. Sundara Aiyar titled “A Treatise on Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law” (1922) to read.  Though it did not fascinate me much, since it was suggested by my senior, I read it almost fully without any instant advantage in any Lis. Yet slowly I realised that it helped me to delve into the unique matrilineal system and its various facets, ranging from management of Tharavad to inheritance under the joint family system. It helped me understanding the depths of civil law, though not fully learning it. Civil law, according to my senior, is like classical music. Learn the classical music first, so that you can learn the light music in a lighter way quite easily and quickly. Go to the trial court and draw up your professional foundation. Let your journey start from the earth so that you grow up to the sky. And you can grow yourself only on the ground and not in the sky. Read a lot. Expand your horizons by expanding your reading. Literature, Philosophy, Art, Science or History- nothing is alien to a lawyer. A lawyer is not a technocrat. And technocracy in the legal realm is a horrible stuff.

• Learn from your mistakes. Your initial days could have certain follies either due to inadvertence or ignorance. Learn from them, for those can teach you immensely.

• Mind your language. I recall a platform at Kozhikode that was shared by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice K.T.Thomas. It was about 30 years ago. Krishna Iyer’s diction is synonymous for a lawman’s creativity. On the other extreme, there could be simple straight forward language in law. I recall Justice K.T.Thomas describing Denning’s language as Telegraphic language. He compared it with Gandhi’s language. It was an authentic speech. My request to you: write and speak in your own language. It is unique; as unique as you. Be proud of it. Yet, improve it every day.

• Mange your time, also help managing of your office. Let me disclose a truth to you: Many of the busy lawyers in India find it difficult to manage their office or litigation firm. It is a tragedy that office management is not taught in our law colleges. So, help your colleagues and seniors in putting the office in order.

• Do not be book worms, either. It is a tragedy that the selection to the trial judiciary is still based on memory test as done by way of written exam. This method is quite outdated and even irrelevant in the age of Google. It makes sense if the candidate is tested with her ability to analyse the pleadings or evaluating the evidence, after furnishing her the copies of plaint/written statement or deposition during the examination. Such an assessment of merit will attract more creative people to the trial judiciary. It might improve the quality of our trial courts as well.

• You are in a different judicial ecosystem. The online courts have altered the lawyers’ professional landscape. By sitting at Ernakulam, you argue before a trial court in a small town in the state and immediately thereafter you address the High Court or even the Supreme Court. Richard Susskind has, in his famous work on online courts
(2019), predicted that physical courts will turn obsolete soon. Online courts have been the biggest revolution in Indian judiciary post-independence, thanks to the efforts by former Chief Justice D.Y.Chandrachud. It is a great equalizer, in a profession that still carries traits of elitism and plutocracy. Use the tremendous potential of digitisation to your advantage and the citizen’s advantage.

And finally: Thrive for excellence in whatever you do. Try to get rid of the mediocrity that the system might try to impose upon you. Remember the poetic admonition by Kahlil Gibran- “It is a pity you cannot sit upon a cloud”. Aim at the stars, for there are plenty of them.

There are, of course, other avocations in law including teaching, administration, journalism, academic research etc. Each one of these is as important and significant as litigation. It is a matter of choice that depends upon one’s aptitude. Remember that a law graduate has thousands of options. He can live thousands of lives. So don’t be disappointed when you fail in some small battles. You are here ultimately to win the war!

With a very short personal account I may wind up. I will not claim anything extraordinary in my career. Yet, I should tell you that a different way is possible even for the most ordinary among us, the humblest among us. I am a first-generation lawyer, who started in the mofussil town of Thalasseri and Payyanur. It is this profession that gave me a life when I found myself in miseries during my young age. I learnt from my Gurus. They include the legends like V.R.Krishna Iyer, his favourite junior M.P.Govindan Nambiar, under whom I started my practice. I have tried to learn from my colleagues, judges, seniors, and the academics across the world. I have also learnt from my clients. As Jiddu Krishnamurti said, every human being is a universe and therefore, every person might teach you a lot. Observe every lawyer in court good or not so good and try to learn or unlearn from him constantly. He might teach you how to argue or sometimes how should not be an argument!

 Let the ultimate power of the Universe help you in your avocation and take you to greater heights. To each among you, I may say something personal: In the famous work The Road, Cormac Mc Carthy , American author, wrote-“You have to carry the fire……it is inside you. It always was there. I can see it.”

God Bless you all. Thank you !