This is the 300th post of this blog and we have come a long way from scratch to be where we are today. The credit to this goes to support received by our readers, classmates and friends in the legal community and each of us authors as such.
I couldn’t think of a more fitting post that to tell the readers of Mr. Andhyarujina’s recent article on the Keshavananda Bharti Review. Printed in the latest SCC [(2009) 9 SCC (J) 33], many may not even be able to read this article. I had the good fortune though to get an account of this incident from Mr. Andhyarujina himself while I was interning with him in December 2007. This was perhaps one of my best internship experiences and influenced me to pursue a career in litigation. He also gave me copies of the review transcript as appearing in Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s book.
In the Article, Mr. Andhyarujina starts off by saying that very few of us know that the momentous judgment of Keshavananda Bharti was subjected to a review in 1975. It took place during the height of the emergency when even the reporting of Court’s judgments by the press was restricted. While giving a historical account of the review and what happened by referring to the transcript in Prashant Bhushan’s book and the books of Justice Krishna Iyer and Nani Palkiwala, Mr. Andhyarujina also treads on the eloquence of Nani Palkiwala and the impact of the review on constitutional democracy.
“While the first objection of Palkhivala did not receive serious consideration, the later objections of Palkhivala had a powerful impact. Argued with great force and eloquence he held the Court and spectators spell-bound. Palkhivala was at all times a master of advocacy when he developed the unacceptable consequences of a situation in law. He did this with telling effect in this case, sometimes derisively countering the theory and its vagueness and uncertainty. Several observers, including Justice HR Khanna, who saw Palkhivala’s performance that day believe that the height of eloquence reached by him on that day will never be surpassed in the Supreme Court.”
Elsewhere, after giving an account of the two day proceedings before the bench was abruptly dissolved, he states,
“On the next day, 12.11.1975, the bench assembled to a packed Court for a resumption of arguments. Hardly had the 13 judges taken their seats when to the Surprise of all the Chief Justice stated “the Bench is dissolved”. He observed that for two days the arguments were found “to go in the air”. …..
…… The sudden end of the review hearing took everybody in the Court including Palkhivala by surprise. The reason for it has remained a mystery till now. What was the reason for it? We now have some revelations. It appears that Palkhivala’s arguments that there was no case in which the Court had found difficulty in applying the basic structure had made a big impact on some judges.”
As law students, we have always been in awe of the Keshavananda bharti judgment. I do recollect instances when most questions in the law school entrance exam hovered around the bench strength and issues in the case. So much so, quoting this lengthy judgment in a moot was like sounding a death knell. It took us a week to be taught the whole judgement by Prof. Errabi in a memorable constitutional law class. Nevertheless, most of us may never get to know of such an incident unless we read articles of the kind written by Mr. Andhyarujina.
For me, it was also a joy to read Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s book referred above titled “The Case that Shook India”. It is a book that gives a factual description of the proceedings in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain. Gripping as it was, it was also a refresher in the sense that it was so much more detailed than mere legal opinions as given in the case. Not surprisingly though, we do not have many books written on our landmark cases while the same are abound in other jurisdictions. The period of the 1970’s itself is one abound in Indian constitutional history and unless such articles come to the fore, we may never get a chance to know about such incidents and the historical and factual basis on which they proceeded.
PS: Please also do sign up for the Legal Newswire.
