Tanguturi Prakasam’s Exchanges with the Judges

Tanguturi Prakasam’s Exchanges with the Judges as Barrister in Madras High Court

Tanguturi Prakasam *

In this connection I would like to give a brief description of certain incidents that occurred during my practice, interesting encounters with the judges and the wordy duels between us. There were several occasions when I crossed swords with the judges. Whenever they were loose in their language or tried to hurt me with their words, I used to retaliate. I returned word for word to vindicate my self-respect and independence.

During my earlier days of practice in Madras, in the year 1907, there was a convention in the Madras Bar. Whenever a senior advocate became a High Court Judge, his juniors used to command enormous influence by becoming the leaders of the Bar. This convention was a stumbling block in my way. I never enjoyed such patronage from any god-father. My only assets were my courage and confidence in facing the judges. Some of those judges used to entertain prejudices and to pre-judge the cases. In such situations they spoke lightly and annoyed the lawyers with inconvenient queries. As a result, there used to be a wordy-warfare between some lawyers and the judges. Some of these judges were whimsical. Therefore, a lawyer with a sense of self-respect and love of independence invariably clashed with such judges. When I entered the profession, an advocate called Norton enjoyed great reputation for his witty and fearless exchanges with the judges.

Once I was arguing in an appeal in the court of Justice Sir Sankaran Nair. Without allowing me to complete my argument he interfered with his provocative comment that the High Court had already given its verdict previously in similar cases. Annoyed by his interruption I said, “Previously judgement was never delivered in such a case. Moreover, you never delivered such a judgement. There is absolutely no connection between this case and the case in your mind”. With this retaliatory remark he was reduced to silence.

On another occasion I had an exchange of words with Wallace. The judge was quick to understand a law point but did not have the patience to follow the argument and understand the facts. However intelligent a judge may be, he cannot do justice unless he understands the facts of the case, because law and facts go together. Besides, Wallace was in the habit of sleeping in the Court. Once when he dozed on the Bench, I put down my papers and sat in the chair. After sometime he woke up and said “Mr Prakasam where are we?” I quipped “My Lord, I do not know where we are!” For this remark of mine he felt very much. He never slept again in the cases in which I appeared before him.

The same judge, once leaned his head to one side and slept. A well-known Indian who was the then Advocate General, was arguing before his Bench. But the Advocate General continued his argument when the Judge was in his deep slumber. After a while the Judge woke up and asked him what he was arguing about. The Advocate General replied that his argument was connected with commercial law. Thereupon the judge exploded. “Why do you talk irrelevantly? What do you know about commercial law?” The poor Advocate General swallowed these insulting remarks and sat down submissively. V. Krishnaswamy Iyyer, the veteran advocate who heard these words mumbled “Yes, We deserve this”. What Krishnaswmy Iyyer meant was that the judges could not have behaved so rudely if there was unity among the members of the Bar.

On another occasion I had a wordy duel with Justice Sir Abdul Rahim who often behaved in a high-handed manner in the Court. In the earlier days he was known for his sobriety, sense of justice, and a streak of independence. As time passed his behaviour changed. He used to express his irritation with the lawyers. By that time V. Krishnaswamy Iyyer relinquished his Judge’s post to become the Executive Councillor. Abdul Rahim also wanted to become an Executive Councillor in his home State of Bengal. It was always a pre-occupation with him. Once I was arguing a civil appeal before him. Interrupting me before I explained the reported point he interjected, “Ah! What is there in it?” Touched to the quick and in sheer disgust I retorted: “Sir! I took a substantial amount of money from my clients in this case. Having studied the case thoroughly I wanted to submit the whole matter to you. In such a situation if you do not allow me to present my argument, what can I say? This is not fair on the part of the judge”. This reply steadied him and he kept quiet. Afterwards there was no repetition of such an exchange of words between us.

There was another Barrister Judge by name Napier. He was intelligent but somewhat easily irritable. In connection with a Criminal case he called me at 4 P.M. to say that the whole case should be completed in ten minutes. I told him that it was impossible and there would not be sufficient time even to present the bare outline of the case. In anger he said to me “Stop telling cock and bull stories”. At once I put down my papers on the table and told him that I would not argue in his court any more unless he withdrew his offensive words. His face turned red and he left the Bench in a huff.

We had an organisation called the “Barristers Association” at that time. I was elected President of the Association in spite of the fact that there were several members like Ashburn, Grant, Norton and Swaminathan, who were senior to me. Our Association passed a resolution expressing strong disapproval of the insulting behaviour of Justice Napier. The resolution was communicated to him. The case was continued only after the judge tendered his apology.

When V. Krishnaswamy Iyyer was a Judge in the High Court I had a tiff with him which led to an exchange of words. The incident happened when I was arguing in a batch suit before him and Justice Wallace. Even at the very start Krishnawamy Iyyer dismissed my case. Although the cause of action was the same in all the suits, I was arguing on the same point for each case separately. Noticing this repeat performance Krishnawamy Iyyer wanted to know why I was doing so. I said “Sir, you have pre-judged the case and came to a conclusion without understanding my argument correctly. Now that I have an opportunity to make a repetition I have been making frantic efforts in the hope that you would understand my point at least once and give weight to my words”. On this, the judge’s comment was “This is an example of Mr. Prakasam’s strong determination”. But the case was decided against me.

However, after one or two weeks Justice Krishnaswamy Iyyer on his own initiative recalled the case. He expressed his desire to hear the argument once again since he felt that he came to a wrong conclusion which perhaps needed correction. After hearing my case carefully this time he gave his judgement in my favour. It was a rare quality in High Court judges. It is but natural for human beings to make mistakes. But it is extraordinary for anyone to realise his mistake and correct it in public afterwards. Thereupon, I wrote in the ‘Law Times’ in praise of Krishnaswamy’s intellectual honesty and sense of Justice. It was indeed a land-mark judgement. Although Krishnaswamy Iyyer behaved in a dominating manner in the court, he was not the type of judge to entertain any bias or prejudice in his mind. Subsequently I went to see him when he became an Executive Councillor. He received me with great courtesy and said, “Prakasam, good friends do not carry any prejudices in their minds”.

In another instance I clashed with Sir K Srinivasa Iyyer, when he was on the Bench. He was a genius with a razor-sharp mind. Before he sat on the Bench he used to form his own opinion about the case by making a thorough study of the case himself. This caused a lot of embarrassment to the average lawyers. Once I was arguing a case when he and Coots Trator were on the Bench. Srinivasa Iyyer with his frequent interruptions in the middle of my argument created the impression that he had already made up his mind to deliver his judgement. Sensing this, I said “Sir, I am not presenting my argument in this case for your sake. You seem to have already made up your mind and arrived at a decision. I am addressing these arguments to the second Judge”. With this repartee he was reduced to silence.

When P.R. Sundaram Iyyer was a Judge, I had a similar skirmish with him. He was very shrewd and intelligent but was in the habit of making a personal study of the case and coming to a conclusion in advance. This made him interrupt the arguments of the lawyer frequently. It was his practice to twist the matters presented by the lawyer by means of his ingenuity and quibbling. I had to face some trouble with him in a case. I wrote in the journal: “This Judge is full of intellectual dishonesty”. It created a sensation and panic among the Judges who wanted, if possible, to file a contempt case against me for showing disrespect towards the judges. On second thoughts they changed their minds because they found that my remark was within the permissible limits of “fair comment” with situational relevance.

So far I have written about the barristers and a few judges. Now I would have a word about the civil judges. There were two categories of such judges. Some of them who gained sufficient experience, used to be calm and steady. Others were somewhat irritable and quick to lose their tempers. The latter were in the habit of blindly confirming the judgement of the lower courts without listening to the arguments advanced by the lawyers.

There was a civil judge by name Munro. I had hardly commenced my argument when I found him writing down his judgement nonchalantly without listening to me. I said, “You are writing away your judgement without giving me a chance to present my argument! Of what use then is shouting myself hoarse?” Thereupon he quipped, “How do you know that I am writing the judgment?” I retorted, “It was my surmise on the basis of the type of queries put by you, your sitting position and your writing style”. There was no doubt, he was actually writing the judgement.

There was a judge called Bodam who used to sit on the “Original Side” Bench. He was intellectually brilliant. However it was the common talk that his mind was always unsteady in the presence of ladies particularly those who were fashionably dressed. Some of the lawyers cleverly exploited this weakness of the judge by flaunting pretty women in the witness box. It was a short-cut to win their cases. For this reason many of the professional prostitutes of the Tankasala street often figured as witnesses in the court.

**C.P. Ramaswamy Iyyer was just then coming up rather fast as a lawyer. He had a lucrative practice on the original side. He was Bodam’s blue-eyed boy. Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Iyyer subsequently put up a statue to justice Bodam and got it unveiled. It is my considered opinion even today that Bodam did not deserve this honour.

Like this I spent 14 years as barrister successfully getting on with the judges without ever compromising my self-respect and professional dignity. Soon after mysetting up practice I started a law journal under the title ‘Law Times’ in consultation with a few prominent lawyers, with the prime object of keeping the judges in check. I purchased this journal from K. Ramachandran. I was the chief editor of the Journal. Madhavan Nair and others were the associate editors. We wrote fearlessly about the Judges in the Journal.

Earlier when I wrote my article which was highly critical of Justice P. R. Sundaram Iyyer causing the judges enough provocation to contemplate contempt proceedings, my friend Madhavan Nair became jittery as he aspired to become Government pleader and eventually a High Court Judge with the influence of his father-in-law Sir Sankaran Nair. Keeping an eye on his future prospects, he got his name deleted from the editorial board in an attempt to safeguard his own interests. I wrote another strongly-worded article criticising V. R. Krishnaswamy Iyyer, the High Court Judge, on his elevation to the post of Executive Councillor. My contention was that it was not good in principle to promote serving judges to the executive cadre. I penned a similar article about Sir Abdul Rahim. After reading my article Sir Abdul Rahim hosted a dinner to me at his residence and explained his problem to me. As long as it lasted, my journal ‘Law Times’ acted like a whip to the Judges.

* (Extract from the English version of Tanguturi Prakasam’s autobiography translated by I. V. Chalapati Rao and released by late Sri. P. V. Narasimha Rao the then prime minister.)
** Sir C.P. was a famous public personality, Dewan of the Travancore State and a University Vice-Chancellor. Under his advice the State resisted merger with the Indian Union for some time.

Artist’s Revenge

A Story is told of Da Vinci, the famous painter, that when he was painting ‘The Last Supper’ he sorely displeased the Abbot, who had ordered the work, by sitting motionless for days before the canvas without touching it because he did not get the inspiration. The Abbot used to ask him angrily when he would begin to paint. Da Vinci took his revenge by using the Abbot as a model for the figure of Judas! (Will Durant’s ‘The Story of Philosophy’)