Wits from the Bench and Bar

(Compiled by V.K. Babu Prakash, Judl. I Class Magistrate III, Thiruvananthapuram

Two lawyers got into a wrangle before the judge of a county Court. At last one of the lawyers losing control over his emotions, exclaimed to his opponent "Sir, you are the biggest fool that I have ever had the misfortune to set eyes on". "Order, order" said the judge gravely "you seem to forget that I am in the room".

Xx             xx        xx       xx

A Judge decided that a certain evidence was inadmissible. The lawyer took strong exception to the ruling and insisted that it was admissible. "I knew, your Honour" said he warmly "that it is proper evidence. Here I have been practicing for forty years and now I want to know if I am a fool". The judge quietly replied "That is a question of fact and not of law, so I won't pass any opinion".

Xx             xx        xx       xx

A celebrated lawyer was prosecuting in a case against a burglar. The burglar's wife was in the witness box and the lawyer was conducting a vigorous cross-examination. "I understand, Madam" said he 'that you are the wife of this man. "Yes" said she. "You knew he was a burglar when you married him, a man who at nights robbing respectable people of their hard earned things", “I did” replied the woman.

"How did you come to contract such a marriage?"

"Well Sir", said the lady sorrowfully "I was getting old and plain and had to choose between a lawyer and a burglar and .............." The counsel sat abruptly without further questions.

Xx             xx        xx       xx

Once, a fresh junior lawyer was presenting his brief before a magistrate. He was too nervous to present the matter. "My lord, my unfortunate client.........." he began and in middle of the submission stammered and got tongue tied. Again he started 'My Lord, my unfortunate client, my lord" again he got lost in the wilderness of anxiety. Once again he started "My Lord, my unfortunate client" then paused again whereupon the witty magistrate remarked "Well gentleman now I got why is your client unfortunate".

Xx             xx        xx       xX

Mr. Justice Darling was a wittish and lively Judge. Once in his court a counsel famous for his loquacious tongue was examining a lady witness. He was very diffuse and wasted many time beating the bush around. At last the witty judge thought to intervene. The counsel asked an irrelevant question to the lady. "Well young lady, how many children have you"? Justice Darling soon made his remark "when you began the question she had three".

Xx             xx        xx       xx

Once, in one of the High Courts of England Justice Maule had to face an arrogant witness. As he asserted an answer which the lawyer again questioned with emphasis, the witness still pompously asserted "My lord, you may believe me or not, but I have been wedded to truth from infancy". Justice Maule quietly remarked "Yes Sir, but the question is how long have you been a widower"?

Xx             xx        xx       xx

Once heady Railway Officer was giving testimony before a magistrate. He was a pompous witness who showed much about his authority.

                       Lawyer: "So Mr. Witness who is A"

                       Rly. Officer: "Oh, he is the S.S."

                       Lawyer: "What do you mean by S.S."

                       Rly. Officer:"Don't you know, he is the Station Superintendent".

                       Lawyer: "Then who are you"?

                       Rly. Officer. (Dignifiedly) "I am his Assistant"

                       Then the Magistrate quickly made a witty remark

                       "Oh, I see the ASS".

Xx             xx        xx       xx

During the hearing of a case, the judge rebuked a man for making noise.

"Your Honour" was the reply "I have lost my over coat and I am looking about to find it".

"Well sir" said the Judge. "People often lose their whole suit here without making so much noise".

Xx             xx        xx       xx

In a trial for bigamy the lawyer from the prosecution side dramatically passed a question to catch the attention of the accused so as to alarm him.

"Your Honour, our penal law provides the heaviest penalty for bigamy".

The witty Judge out lashed "Two mothers in law".

Xx             xx        xx       xx

Once a barrister famous for muddle headedness was moving a brief to set aside a calculation in a pleading. It was in the court of Judge Russel who was famous for his humours.

"But on what ground do you move" asked the judge.

"The calculation is unintelligible"

"Not to me" objected the judge "It appears clear to me".

"My lord, if your lordship bears with me a while, I confidently undertake to make it as unintelligible to your lordship as it is to myself. The lawyer snapped.

Xx             xx        xx       xx

Once a lawyer was vehemently defending a divorce suit.

"Is insanity a cause for divorce", My Lord"?

The lawyer asked fervently.

"No it is the cause of marriage" was the swift answer from the bench.

Xx             xx        xx       xx

Once a lawyer was arguing at greater length than was necessary. When the judge mildly remonstrated the lawyer drew himself up and claimed mat some latitude should be shown to the client. Thereupon the judge replied "Mr. Lawyer, I am not complaining about the latitude but only of the longitude".

Xx             xx        xx       xx

A man was found guilty for the charge of rape by a judge. He read out the sentencing part of his judgment as follows: "You are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for causing hurt with a deadly weapon, an offence within this jurisdiction."

"Screening" of Subordinate Judicial Officers - To Make Judicial Immunity Seem Absolutely Meaningful

(K. Srinivasan Nair, Former Judicial Officer and Additional Director of Public Prosecutions, Vigilance)

Corruption has become rampant, irrespective of the incessant loud deliberations at all authoritative realms to effectively combat this growing menace. Day by day, a common man, virtually, finds it difficult to get things done in any office, without parting with substantial additional expenses, either by way of tips, presents or bribe. Officers and employees who take objection to this malpractice, to secure illegitimate comforts, are first ignored as inefficient outcastes and later made to suffer humilitatory treatments, intended to make suitable changes in their concept. Even the most upright and the honest are finally dragged down to co-operate, assist or acqiesce in the dubious and deceptive dealings of others. A few percentage, that is ultimately left out, becomes the target of common attack and is finally entrapped in trivial or imaginary delinquencies, boosted up to the virge of misconduct.

The media coverage, every day, elaborately reveal fresh instances of corruption, at all levels, political, bureaucratic and administrative. When the unethical and fraudulent devices of various agencies, including higher ups in politics, are frequently raked up and placed before Courts for adjudication, the impartial, bold, unbiased and the deserving verdicts they pass, permeate a divine message that testifies to the supremacy of law.

No man, however high, is above law. When persons in power encouraged or willingly tolerated any overt or convert abuse of official position and become a privy to such nefarious, unsocial acts, to acquire undue gains, it is ultimately the court that emerges as a ray of hope to all right minded citizen, to convince them of the existence of a superior forum to deal with and punish the miscreants of such criminal commitments. People naturally feel elated at this powerful, unerring, ultimate win of the dictates of law.

But what if these essential prerequisites of virtue and unbiased approach appear lacking in some judicial officers in the lower rung? Will it not project a sharp, ostensible difference in the dispensation of justice between the highest and lowest forums of the well structured institutionality of justice?

In our democratic set up, judiciary enjoys absolute independence and the confidence of public trust of the three pillors exercising sovereign power in a State legislature, executive and judiciary-judiciary is held to be relatively distinct and superior, inspite of its containing 'public servants' alike in the other two systems. It is in view of the supreme power it weilds in deciding the legality of the various actions attributed to the parties involved, irrespective of official, social or political status. This decision making, uninfluenced by the level of personalities, undoubtedly, requires absolute immunity.

The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts have constitutional safeguards. The Supreme Court, therefore, laid down that the misconduct of a judge should be discussed only on a motion in the Parliament, as per the enabling provision in the Constitution, without making such matters a subject of discussion in a Bar Association or any other forum of lawyers. But judicial officers, subordinate to the High Court, do not have that constitutional protection, though the nature of their work requires fair and impartial administration of justice, quite uninfluenced by fear or favour or other extraneous considerations.

Though an authoritative final pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the point whether justification by truth is a valid defence in contempt of court cases is still awaited, the available view, deductible from the decision of-the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court lays down a ban on any discussion regarding the misconduct of even a lower judicial officer. However, the question of elimination of truth as a valid defence in the contempt case, is, actually, desirable, would attract conflicting contentions.

Here, I only intend to deal with the possible consequences of rendering total immunity to the actions of judicial officers at all levels, without ensuring the qualitative outcome of their disposal.

Granting absolute immunity to the judiciary is a reward for its rectitude. It should never be interpreted as a safeguard to protect wrong or avoid exposure of misdeeds, by suppressing dishonesty or corruption. It should never signal impending terror of autocracy.

The question now is whether the recognition of this immunity would, in effect, stretch its power to unlimited heights that may breed dangers inherent in absolute power. One can not be totally oblivious to the adage "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". In this modern age nobody can be unconcerned about the accountability of any office. Accountability and transparency are accepted as the keynotes in administration. It requires especially so in the case of judicial officer in view of the oft-quoted ideal "justice should not only be done; it should appear to be done". By presenting a Bill on the Right to Information we have glorified the theory of transparency. So, naturally it has to be ensured whether an officer is a "real" judicial officer or is only "assumed" to be one.

Much, therefore, depends on the selection of lower judicial officers, the sort of training imparted to them and the extent of control exercised by the High Court in overseeing their judicial merit.

It is undoubted that only the best of the lot are now selected as Munsiffs and Magistrates. But do they stand comparison to the old recruits, having better standard of accomplishments? One can conceive of the still newer hands who will be selected in due course, from among the lawyers in profession, who are blissfully exempted from appearing for the Bar Council Examinations and in whose respect the terms of apprenticeship were conveniently waived. Prudence credits practical sagacity with experience. In otherwords, expertise is achieved only by practical experience over the years. That is why drastic shortcoming of lower judicial officers are often exposed by the higher judicial officers, in exercise of their appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts analyse matters and adjudicate thereupon, their observations and verdicts themselves speak of their maturity, depth of knowledge and seasoned and reasoned thinking underlying.

The term 'Judicial Officer' includes within its fold all judicial officers, young and old, at all levels, with different standards in perception, thinking and decision making. So, the automatic or mechanical extension of immunity to all these officers alike, by equation in nomenclature, may tend to have adverse consequences. Indisputably, the divine mission of dispensation of justice is performed by mortals of different capabilities. Human beings are of varying types, honest, shrewd, hardworking, intelligent, erudite, peevish, lazy, indifferent, impatient, haughty, snobbish, ill-tempered and the like. It has to be remembered that many newcomers do not become tempered as expected; but remain guided by temperaments.

The term 'judicial officer' postulates a homogenous fusion of all what is good and right. It has to be a synonym for rectitude.

Common people always form their impressions through their familiar day-to-day experience derivable from the judicial system at the bottom. Though a party involved or concerned in any litigation cannot always directly assess the legitimacy or otherwise of the various acts of the Presiding officer, he will naturally be posted with essential informations, divulged to him in secrecy, by this lawyer, lawyer's clerk, police or any friendly staff in Court. The image he thereupon forms and conveys to others in his gossips may create an impression of absence of straightforward, honest and impartial execution of duties and responsibilities. When such unwarranted digressions cannot be discarded as unfounded, the possibility of attaching a stigma is felt inevitable. This has necessarily to be guarded against, in the interests of justice.

It is true that an uninhibited objective analysis, in an attempt to obtain perfection, will be a commendable step in the process of attaining self improvement. But that does not appear always possible in respect of all officers. Some seem to refuse to receive counselling on account of egotistic considerations. In many mofussil centres, the rapport between the Presiding Officer and the advocates is unhealthy, unlike the olden days. Yet another few would prefer to forget altogether the nobility of a lawyer and start treating him with unconcern, the moment they leave that field and enter the judiciary.

Human traits may also require some sort of expert advice or warning from experienced elders, preferably exercising administrative control to ensure compliance of certain requirements to gain excellence in performance.

To guard against any stigma of disrepute, it is felt better that the High Court should intervene, otherwise than through the embarrassing and apprehensive approach of an advocate or client who would, naturally, like to avoid interpretative innuendoes, guarded unconcern and hidden threats from related quarters.

Brotherly advice tendered by Justice Kamath of the Kerala High Court on the opening of the training course to the lower judicial officers is an exemplary mode of instructive enlightenment. The elaborate exposition of the attributes of a "real" judge made recently by the Supreme Court is a self eloquent pointer of the pressing need of accomplishment.

It is, therefore, highly essential to rule out the possible abuse of immunity by inexperienced hands, to reinforce the basic principle. As a well wisher, having long experience, also as a judicial officer, I venture to suggest the introduction of a system of 'screening' of the subordinate judicial officers, to eliminate misfits and encourage the deserving and modifying the curriculum of training, if need be, to improve their all round performance, over and above the present evaluation of their intellectual faculties.

It is earnestly hoped that the well experienced and conscientious Chief Justice of the High Court may chalk out and implement appropriate steps to make the judiciary exemplary, in conformity with the aspirations of the entire populace. Let all the judicial officers acquire the required attributes to withstand all potential extraneous influence, as reflected in the revelation made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the other day.

Investigating and Prosecuting Agencies – Their Susceptibility and Lack of Co-ordination - Measures for Improvement

(By K. Srinivasan Nair, Former Addl. Director of Public Prosecution)

Enforcement of the rule of law, inter alia, requires conviction of the criminals and the resultant awarding of appropriate punishment commensurate with the guilt committed.

But there is remarkable gap between the "guilt alleged" and "proved to have been committed'". The question of proof, therefore, assumes utmost importance in the prosecution of a criminal. The basic principle of our criminal jurisprudence that until proved guilty (he accused is presumed to be innocent, testifies to the imperative need for substantiating the offence charged, though, the law, sometimes, admits of exceptional circumstances mitigating that rigour, by shifting the burden of proof on the accused.

A prime element required for the success of any prosecution is coordination between the investigating and prosecuting agencies. Right from the registration of a case, the concerned investigating officers have to keep in touch with the prosecutor in charge to obtain proper advice and to lay (he chargesheet on the close of the investigation, vide S. 173 Cr. P.C. Inclusion of the relevant Sections of the penal provisions in the FIR and following up of the other further steps in investigation, promptly and diligently, are certainly matters on which a skilful and devoted public prosecutor can render effective guidance. Plugging of loopholes and avoidance of irregularities and illegalities in investigation are mostly ensured by such timely consultations. The charge sheets also have to be got approved by the concerned prosecutor, before the same are laid before court. This system enables the prosecutor to have a subjective satisfaction as to the compliance of instructions, if any, earlier issued. The aim of the prosecution, always, cannot be to have recourse to the judicial pronouncements which held that the irregularities or illegal ties in investigation, in the absence of prejudice, do not vitiate the trial and the evidence adduced therein.

In olden days, these essential prerequisites were literally fulfilled. Any failure on the part of the respective police officers to comply with these requirements were also viewed with seriousness and suitable punishment awarded for ther lapses. In those days, any stricture passed by a court concerning the mode of investigation or prosecution was also seriously dealt with at appropriate higher levels. Devotion to duty and sincerity of purpose are, indeed, sharpened only by retention of an apprehension of initiation of disciplinary action for deriliction of duty. Otherwise, that thrive is only diminished on comparative assessment of ineffective response to lapses. A scrutiny at higher levels, detection of errant officers and the consequent disciplinary action for lapses are sufficient precautionary measures to safeguard against possible abuses.

In special units like the C.B.I and Vigilance, enforcement of all the legal and statutory requirement is strictly adhered to. Prosecuting officers are also given awards, rewards, commendations certificates and G.S. Es (Good Service Entries), as an incentive for still meritorious performance. And so, the results are also evidently better.

But the checks to ascertain and remedy the flaws in investigation and prosecution, coupled with steps for punitive action against delinquents, have gradually, lost that rigour. The authorities at the helm of the successive Governments, directly or indirectly, managed to make the police officers believe that the maintenance of law and order, by making bundobast arrangements and giving protection to organised activities like jathas, picketing, strikes etc, of favoured political associations is their primary duty, in preference to the pursuit of investigation, according to law. Naturally, much cannot he expected, exclusively, from a station house officer, or any other in charge. And, thus, investigation began to be treated as comparatively unimportant, unless specially asked for by superiors. The consequence, no doubt, was a slackening in investigation, at the hands of the .local police.

A situation has come, it is generally complained, where one can expect vigilant police action, only if any person in authority or anyone connected therewith, is interested in the proper continuation of criminal action. Similarly, when interested or influential persons are involved in the commission of any crime, action is delayed, by one reason or other, ostensibly with a view to pave way for the disappearance of evidence relating to the commission of the crime. Kerala police has got exceptionally efficient officers, but unless the higher ups, whomsoever it be, retrain from imposing restraints, they are bound to become helpless.

It has to be noted, that delayed retention of vacancies in vulnerable posts and constant transfers of officers only help to court adverse criticism on this score.

This peculiar phenomenon is frequently described as criminalisation of politics and politicisation of criminals. It admittedly, threatens the very security of the people at large and the ideal of peaceful coexistence. The oft repeated delay in investigation displays a totally lethargic disfunction. And it has assumed serious proportions, destroying the faith on an impartial probe by the local police.

In respect of many detailed instances the discontended people started legal proceedings, requesting the intervention of the highest court to set right this malady and it is reported that this tragic trend has warranted a factual account from the Director General of Police.

Is the political support, alleged to have been received by the police officers, one of the reasons that made the prosecuting agency also lethargic in its insistence on, or advice relating to the building up of a strong edifice for prosecuting the criminal elements? Political allegiance of prosecuting officers, may. sometimes, afford scope to spell out calculated inaction, that supplemented this all pervading malady. Any law abiding citizen, cannot remain unconcerned, unless political or extraneous considerations in investigation and prosecution are set at bay and handling of crimes and criminals, are allowed to proceed strictly, in conformity with prudence and dictates of law. It is appropriate to remember that it is totally dangerous to allow legal, statutory and moral requirements to be outweighed by sheer personal predilections and considerations of some persons in power.

Every prosecutor will have to realise that inspite of his representing the State, he is an officer of the court, to assist it in the administration of justice. He should not be susceptible to extraneous influence and be blindly carried away by the orders of the Executive. The caution given in several judicial pronouncements in this respect, makes it imperative that he should have his own independent assessment in the light of all the attendant facts and circumstances and questions of Jaw involved, even in matters regarding withdrawal from prosecution, as per orders of the Government, sought for under S. 321 Cr. P.C.

It is however, true that now there is no code of conduct for police officers, making it obligatory to obtain the opinion of the public prosecutor, at the various stages of investigation. The practice of getting the charge sheets approved by the concerned prosecuting officers, as stated above, and their concerted move for the success before Court, have become a thing of the past. Unless the prosecuting officers are compulsorily asked, providing sufficient opportunity, no doubt, to have a thorough grasp of (he entire facts and circumstances, with due emphasis on the questions of law, they are bound to put up a sorry figure before court. Appointment of prosecuting officers, otherwise than on merit, only undermines the status of the post and defacto efficiency.

An incompetent prosecutor, leaves the impression of an inconsequential apparition, straining just to fulfil his official obligation. A hero among friends becomes a zero within court, contributing only to the annoyance of the presiding officer. No doubt, the court will manage somehow; but this predicament is frequently discussed, joked at and sympathised in professional circles.

A much earlier order of remand, in an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under S. 5(i) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for habitually accepting bribe, on the ground of misjoinder of charge under S. 219(i) Cr.P.C. on the practical admission of the prosecutor, comes to my memory as one of the concrete examples of such a pathetic predicament.

Even in all important cases, case diaries are not presented to the prosecutors, in advance, or copies of records supplied, except in some stations. The assistance rendered also is sometimes, nil. This has serious adverse reflections in results.

I genuinely feel, it is high time to ensure proper coordination between these two vital agencies to prevent this mockery of justice. Separate codes of conduct have to be chalked out and scrupulous compliance ensured to obtain positive results. An independent Directorate of Prosecution has to be evolved to improve this generally prevalent pitiable plight of the prosecutors in the lower rung. But, this idea still awfully remains a wishful thinking, for reasons obvious. A more fearless approach and proper assessment of the situation by the prosecuting officers can be ensured only by the creation of an independent Directorate of Prosecution.

Creation of cadre posts for the promotion of Dy. Directors of Prosecution as Public Prosecutors, bifurcating the post of Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor will necessarily be another salutory step to improve the qualitative functioning of this important agency.

Years back, in 1985,1 happened to submit a report to the Government, through the Director General of Police, in my then official capacity; but what followed eventually, confined only to the creation of 14 posts of Deputy Directors of Prosecution.

It has to be gratefully remembered that the post of Director of Public Prosecution made its presence keenly felt, for the first time, during the tenure of Sri. Chettoor Sankaran Nair, who was later elevated as a Judge of our High Court.

Any further omission on the part of the concerned authorities to find out and implement appropriate measures, intended to streamline and strengthen the prosecution set up in the State can only result in more chaos and confusion in our democratic society. No wonder if people loudly aspire for the advent of a system of District Attorneys, as in USA who control the investigation and discharge their duties and responsibilities with integrity, dignity and distinction.

The Advocate General and the Director of Public Prosecutions may do well if they realise the gravity of the situation and bestow their personal attention on this issue and chalk out and implement appropriate measures, in consultation with the Government and the Director General of Police, for the betterment of the qualitative functioning of these two important limbs in the administration of justice.

Liturgical Dramatization of Adjudication

(By Fr. Xavier Kudiamssery, LLM, Banglore)

Religion and law are mutually complimentary. Law without religion loses its sanctity and its inspiration. So also religion without law loses its social and historical character and becomes purely personal mystique. It is noteable that there is a mutual attempt to moralize legality and to legalize morality.

It is worth noting that in appearance and in application of law, a religious ceremonial phenomenon is consciously or unconsciously adopted. Harold J. Berman in his f amour book titled "The Interaction of Law and Religion" (London: SCM Press Ltd. 1974) gives us a good treatise on the subject. The religion exists mainly through the dramatisation of the sal vific event through rituals. In the same way law adopts a solemn dramatisation of long cherished values of humanity for co-existence and well being. In religious sphere, there is an altar to perform liturgical sacrifices. The priests and other officials appear in their special vestments. The court room is also arranged like an alter and the Judges, lawyers and other participants appear in their special garments. Symbols of the office of the Judge, the robes, the furniture and so on are arranged symbolically, as in religion to impress not only the Judge, but also all other participants in the proceedings and indeed the society as a whole. It indicates that the Judge as well as all other participants should put aside their personal interests and prejudices and participate in the solemn and holy sacramental function of adoration of justice. The lawyers the parties, the witnesses and others involved in a trial are given their respective roles by the ceremonious opening in which all stand up and bow in adoration of justice and in mutual respect. The strict order of appearance, the oaths, the forms of address and the like rituals dramatise the adjudication process with full ceremonial display.

This dramatisation both in law and in religion is intended to induce people to reflect on the values therein, as well as to induce on emotional belief in all the participants. Through this dramatisation all are invited to share the emotional imperative on a common sense of rights, an aversion to inconsistency, a passion for equality of treatment, an abhorrence of illegality and a commitment to legality. It also highlights the fundamental postulate of all legal systems, even the most rudimentary, that 'like cases should be decided alike'. The rituals raise that postulate from a matter of intellectual perception and moral duty to a matter of collective faith, aiming at gaining faithfulness to law. This is essentially the same kind of dramatic response to the sacred, to the ultimate purpose of life, that is characteristic of religious faith. In fact, as in religion, it is this processual dramatization that gives existence to the value content of law.

Ultimately all the rituals are an appeal to go to the inner self for an examination and to get strengthened in conscience. This again calls for a principle of conscience in adjudication. That is the Judge must judge himself before he may judge the accused. He must identify himself with the accused, since thereby he will know more about the crime than the criminal himself. Appeal to conscience being essential part of adjudication certain procedural and ceremonial, and of course, substantive systems are envisaged. The right to legal representation by professional lawyers and the procedure for interrogation and so on are based on this principle of conscience. It is also associated with the idea of equality of the law, since in conscience all litigants are equal.

In the result, the dramatization inspires that all trials should be educative and not vindicative. It should cloth man with divinity and dignity. It is better to delay the proceedings than to ridicule a defendant. It is better that he goes free than the court should do an ignoble thing. A trial should provide a catharsis and not a new assault upon the dignity. Cooked up stories, crooked steps and calculated lies shall not prevail in the court procedure, because the legal procedure is a sacred one and it applies to the innermost conscience of all participants of the dramatisation of the liturgy of litigation. From the Court the litigants shall not inhale vengeance and venomous feelings, instead a spiritual fragrance should always be there. They should go back with a spiritual mind searching truth and justice and definitely reconciled.

Late Shri. S. Narayanan Poti - Reminiscences of a Junior

(By Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Sankara Subban)

"Tis all the Chequer - board of Nights and days,

Where destiny with Men for Pieces plays,

Higher and thither moves, and matter and stays,

And one by one back in the closet lays,"

- OMAR KHAYYAM

It was on the 3rd December. 1971 that I joined the office of Sri. S. Narayanan Poti, as a junior. Before that I was practising at Trivandrum. It was my father's wish that I join the office of Shri. Poti. My father knew Sri. Poti while Sri. Poti was practising at Trivandrum. but the contact was little after Sri. Poti shifted to Ernakulam. Even though I had heard of Sri. Poti, I had never met him. It was in the month of September, 1971 that I first met him expressing my desire to join in his office. After talking to me for some time, he asked me to come two days' later. When I met him again, he gave me green signal to join his office. Subsequently, I came to know that Sri. Poti had enquired about me with some of my friends in the High Court Bar and only after he was satisfied that I would be serious in the profession that he invited me to join his office.

2. On the first day of my joining, he told me that there was no substitute for hardwork. He further advised me to read the decisions of the Court of Appeals and House of Lords. In fact, on the first day itself, he gave me a volume of the English Law Reports and asked to read the decisions contained therein. He also gave me a copy of Allen's "Law in the making" for reading. He used to enquire often regarding my reading of the decisions. He told me that whatever points an advocate may urge at the time of argument, they will not be accepted by the Judges unless they were supported by an authoritative pronouncement. The reasoning given by an advocate by using his commonsense may be correct. But mere ipse dixit will not be accepted. Reading of the judgments will help in shaping the thoughts in the proper way.

3. Sri. Poti stood as a different class by himself in his relationship with his clients and juniors. His preparation and presentation of cases were unique. He was a person who used to master the facts and the law points arising in a case. I had seen him reading the entire depositions of the witnesses himself and underlining the relevant portions. He had an extraordinary power of memory. Regarding the questions of law, he would not be satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court of the High Courts. He will make a complete research by reading the relevant text books. Russel on Arbitration, Paget on Banking, Spencer Bower on Res judicata, Lewin on Trust, Megarry on Damages, Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, De Smith on Administrative Law were his constant companions. It was always rewarding to hear his arguments. Built in a frail frame, to begin with his arguments will be in a very low tone. Subsequently, the pitch of the tone will be increased and he will move his legal points dexterously. His presentation was very simple. He will never play to the gallery nor utter any word wounding the opposite lawyer. When a junior lawyer appears against him, he used to act very co-operative with him. He will never refuse when a junior lawyer wants an adjournment of the case. He used to advise us not to use strong words in the pleadings. Even while denying a fact in a counter affidavit he used to advise us not to use the word 'false' but to use the word 'not true'.

4. I had the opportunity to assist Sri. Poti in many important cases. Before finalising his argument, he used to devote much thoughts as to the interpretation of the clause in a document or in a statute. He will argue only when the preparations are completed. One important case is the one reported in 1973 KLT 701. He appeared on behalf of the declarants in a ceiling case. The declarants owned lands described as kayal lands and they sold the kayal lands between 15.9.1963 and 1.1.1970. The kayal lands were exempted from the ceiling provisions by the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But by Act 35/69 exemption was taken away. The question was whether the alienated land can be included in the ceiling area. The State opposed vehemently. But the Division Bench accepted the contention of Sri. Poti that the lands once exempted from the provisions of the ceiling law, at the time of sale, would not be taken into account. The State took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court, but without success.

5. Another important case was C. W. Engineer v. Eapen Varghese - 1977 KLT 1019. It was under the Arbitration Act. No less a person that Sri. K. Parasaran, then Advocate General of Madras appeared for the appellant. The award was attacked on the ground of misconduct and error apparent on the face of the files. I remember, Sri. Poti purchasing a new edition of Russel on Arbitration for the purpose of the case. He studied the book as a student was preparing for the examination. The decision in Chamsey Bara's case was studied in such a way that he could locate the relevant passages without looking into the same. The case was argued for a number of days and ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. The work done by Sri. Poti in the above case would be described as 'without parallel'. After the arguments were over Sri. Parasaran met Sri. Poti and told him that he was very much impressed by his erudition and forensic ability and sought his blessings. Sri. Poti had contributed very much for the development of Arbitration Law. Many reported decisions stand testimony to tlus. The crowning glory was achieved by Sri. Poti when he appeared as Advocate General in Stale of Kerala v. Aboobaker - 1995 (1) KLT 850. There, he succeeded in setting aside the awards on the ground of misconduct. In paragraph 28 of the judgment, Thomas, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench said: "Of course credit must certainly go to the octogenerian Advocate General for winching up all such odious scum to the surface."

6. Another field where Sri. Poti excelled was in the field of Election Law. After every general election, one can find politicians frequently visiting Sri. Poti's office. He would be engaged either for the petitioner of for the respondent in the majority of the election petitions. One of the important cases was A.C. Jose's case (A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai - 1982 KLT 876). The contention in that case was with regard to the use of voting machines. The contention raised by Sri. Poti was that the Election Commission had no jurisdiction to issue directions regarding the use of voting machines as the Commission had to act in accordance with law made by the Parliament. In this case, Sri. Poti was ready to argue the case even when he prepared the election petition. Justice Kochu Thommen who heard the election petition dismissed the election petition. One could discern in the mind of Justice Kochu Thommen the feeling that injustice would be caused to elected representative if his election was set aside for no fault of his. The matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declared the direction of Election Commission to use the voting machines as illegal and unseated the returned candidate. Re-election was ordered and Mr. Jose won in the reelection. Another case is George Mascrene v. Neelalohitha Dasan Nadar. Here, the contention taken was that certain voters, whose names had been wrongly included in the electoral rolls of more than one polling station in a constituency, had dishonestly voted in both the polling stations and one of the issues was whether the principle of secrecy of ballot paper was absolute. It was held that the principle of secrecy should yield to the purity of election in the larger public interest. After recounting, Mr. Mascrene was declared elected. Another important case where Sri. Poti appeared is the Church case. I remember, he used to be away from his house in order to study the case without disturbance. He always liked arguing civil cases than service matters.

7. Sri. Poti used to be selective in accepting the briefs. He used to discourage clients from unnecessary litigations. He always welcomed parties compromising matter and would not hesitate to tell his client if he was unreasonable. He had been engaged by many local authorities and he charged them only regulation fees. He had never tolerated unjust or illegal means. Once he had filed an appeal on behalf of a local authority. Subsequently, the local authority wanted to withdraw the appeal apparently due to pressure from the opposite side. Sri. Poti opined that it was a good case for the local authority and that he would not withdraw the appeal unless the local authority passed a resolution to that effect. The local authority did not pass the resolution and finally the appeal was allowed resulting in great monetary benefit to the local authority. As Advocate General also he exhibited the same sternness.

8. Sri. Poti treated his juniors well. He paid them handsomely. One could clear away the doubts any time. He gave a free hand to the junior to argue the case. The office room and the library were always open to the juniors. Many lawyers would give senior engagements to Sri. Poti. In such cases, he always saw that such lawyers get their share of fees also. It is true that Sri. Poti used to charge high fees. But ultimately when one sees the work done by him one will agree that the fees charged were not exorbitant.

9. Sri. Poti was very humorous in his conversation. It was very pleasing to hear his anecdotes. He used to recount his experience when he entered the profession. Shri. Poti's father was a Pleader at Attingal. Sri. Poti started his practice independently in Trivandrum. Initially he did not have any work. He used to ask adjournments on behalf of other lawyers. One day, a client (judgment debtor) engaged him to get the sale adjourned. The advocate for the decree holder opposed. The Presiding Officer said that since Sri. Poti was getting adjournment for other lawyers it was in the fitness of things to grant adjournment in his own case. At the time when Sri. Poti was enrolled, the financial condition in his family was not good. He had told us that it was with borrowed money that he was enrolled. One of his father's friends agreed to give the necessary fees for enrolment and for buying the black coat. When he went to the friend's house, the friend's wife asked him doesn't he want money for buying the gown. He always remembered the couple.

10. Sri. Poti was a good sportsman and he used to enjoy Karnatic music. After coming from Court, he will go to the badminton Court. He will have no appointments with the clients between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm. As a principle he had consultation with his clients in the office only. I know one instance when the President of a multinational company wanted to consult Sri. Poti at the office of the company. Sri. Poti flatly refused.

11. Sri. Poti was of a helping disposition. He used to help many persons, who were in need of money. I personally know many instances, where Sri. Poti had given financial assistance for the education of the children. He never indulged in luxury. He was very simple in his habits and always was clad in white clothes. I had never found him losing his temper. He was very humble, very tolerant and acted as per his conscience. He used to contribute liberally for social and charitable causes. He was not member of any club. But he had a large circle of friends. He was part time Lecturer in the Ernakulam Law College for about three years. He was very friendly with his students. His notes on Constitutional law was famous. Many of his juniors had occupied prominent places in life. Among them Sri. P. Subramonian Poti, former Chief Justice of Kerala. Many of his students later became Judges of the High Court of Kerala.

12. As a student, he was good at studies. In those days, there was a system of studying optional subjects in the High School Class. Since Sri. Poti was proficient in Science and Mathematics, his class teacher recommended him to take the first group. But his father wanted to groom Sri. Poti as a lawyer and wanted him to opt for the art subjects. When this was put to the class teacher, he wanted the matter to be reconsidered. But there was no change and Sri. Poti opted for the art subjects. He got scholarship in view of the high marks secured by him in the school final examination. He graduated in law with high second class.

13. As it is said, behind the success of every man, there is a woman. Smt. Poti is a very gracious lady. The couple thought alike and Prem Nivas was always brimming with acts of kindness and generosity.

14. Just two hours before the death, I went to see Sri. Poti in the IC Unit. He scribbled on a piece of paper that he wanted a copy of my Uncle Sri. Krishnamoorthy Iyer's speech made on the occasion of the donation of his library. I came home, took a copy of the speech and sent the same to be handed over to him. But by that time, he had attained eternal peace.

"The heights of great men reached and kept

Were not attained by sudden flight,

But they, while their companions slept,

Were toiling upward in the night".