Justice Govindarajachari

JUSTICE GOVINDARAJACHARI ¹

I FEEL there is something painfully incongruous in my having to take part in this function. 1 am reminded of what the late Sir Subrahmania Aiyar said in the memorial meeting convened in 1914 after the death of the late Mr. Justice Sundara Aiyar. He likened his taking part in the function to a father performing the last rites of his own son. My feelings now are quite as disturbed and painful.

As I reflect on the untimely death of Mr. Justice Govindarajachari and on the tragic and premature end of a most promising career, my mind goes to a day in 1920, when, after a very distinguished record both in Arts and Law, Mr. Govindarajachari approached me with a request to take him as my apprentice with a letter of introduction from Mr. Arthur Davis, the then Principal of the Law College.

Even as an apprentice-at-law, he threw himself heart and soul into his work and used to accompany me to the mofussil courts in important causes such as the Gollaprole case. In the first years of his profession, I had the benefit of his assistance in several important causes such as the Challapalli Kamatam suits at Masulipatam, and the Mirzapur partition suit at Bezwada. The early years of Mr. Govindarajachari’s career at the Bar coincided with the period in my professional career when it so happened that brilliant young men used to frequent my chamber. In the Tanjore Palace appeal, I was like a Chief of the staff having to mainly depend upon his marshals and lieutenants. Mr. patanjali Sastriar was the junior generally in charge of the case. My friend Mr. Balasubrahmania Aiyar made a special study of the Sastraic and ceremonial portion. Mr. Govindarajachari explored the archives of Mahratta history and made a special study of the Bakhars. I must, however, own to a feeling of sadness that all our efforts should have been directed to making out that the greatest of the Hindu Kings ² was not a Kshatriya. Later, Mr. Govindarajachari assisted me when I appeared before the Select Committee of the Madras Legislative Council in 1923 or thereabout to represent the case of the landholders in connection with the Madras Irrigation Bill, and, even at that early stage of his professional career, he impressed me with his accurate, keen, and intimate knowledge of the land tenures of this presidency. In a certain type of cases, I noticed he was particularly strong where I was weak. In the Gunderu suit, in the course of the trial in the court below, Aiyar, who was assisting us with his expert knowledge? Quite recently, in the Gopalpur case which was heard by Justices Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastriar, which turned on whether certain accretions were re-formation in situ, or were lateral or vertical formations, I was struck by his study of complicated river plans and charts.

Within a few years after his joining the profession, he reached the top ranks and became one of the accredited leaders of the Bar. In the later years of his professional career, it was a source of great pleasure to me to be opposed by him and, not infrequently, for him to get the better of me.

Mr. Justice Govindarajachari had an alert intellect; in his work as a lawyer, he showed a very quick grasp of the facts in any complicated case and the legal questions involved in it. He easily disentangled the material and relevant parts of a case from the immaterial and the irrelevant. As a junior at the Bar, while himself thorough with every detail in a case, he could easily adapt himself to the requirements of a senior counsel and post him quickly with the essential parts of it. Of him it cannot be said that he ever missed the wood for the trees. His form and style attracted the attention of every Judge before whom he appeared. He had a persuasive eloquence, a power of lucid exposition, and commanded a fluent, chaste and forcible style. His address in court was marked by a quick and unflurried manner and, even when provoked in argument, he kept his temper under admirable control.

He was well-read both in Indian and English case-law, and had a thorough grasp of legal principles. Unlike even some able Advocates, he never left the court or the opposite side in any haze or doubt as regards the main points of his arguments.

In the latter years of his professional career, he probably over-strained himself, which must have told seriously on his health.

He was not a dry lawyer, wedded solely to his profession. His was a well-ordered, well-stored, and well-balanced mind. He brought to bear a judicial approach to every problem with which he was faced. He could never think nor be persuaded to think in narrow, parochial, or provincial terms. He was fired by a lofty patriotism. He was well-read in literature, politics, and history. He took great interest in fine arts and in high-class literary journalism. He was a lover of good books, pictures and plays, and generally the good things of life. He was connected with several public institutions of the City and in every way he lived a full life. He was a fine and eloquent speaker on public platforms.

During the brief period he was a Judge he took ill twice, the last illness proving fatal. Even during the short period of his office as a Judge, his work gave promise of a great career which would have entitled him to take his place along with some of the brightest names that have adorned our legal history. He had taken part in notable causes, and his judgments were marked by a sense of form, learning, lucidity, and a fine diction. It is often stated–and not without truth–that there is a temptation for an able member of the Bar elevated to the Bench, to exhibit an inability to cast off the role of an Advocate on points on which he feels strongly. In my experience I have known of even eminent Judges–unconsciously it may be–mistaking their function as Judges and, instead of allowing the Counsel to persuade the Judge to a particular point of view, reversing the process and arguing with the Counsel. But, from all reports and from my experience in the few cases that I appeared before him, Mr. Govindarajachari brought to bear a remarkable patience and a desire to have every aspect of a question thrashed out. He exhibited uniform courtesy and friendliness to every section of the Bar.

No words can adequately convey our sense of grief and irreparable loss at Mr. Justice Govindarajachari being cut off in the prime of life. In his passing away the Madras High Court has lost the services of a brilliant and distinguished Judge; this Province a most enlightened and public-spirited citizen, and, if I may be permitted to say so, I have lost a valued and dear friend.

¹ Full text of the speech delivered at the Ranade Hall, Mylapore, Madras, on October 14.
² Shivaji, ancestor of the Tanjore Kings.