A Tribute to Justice Krishna Iyer

Author: Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has been hailed as the “judicial conscience of India” and credited with the responsibility of “humanizing law in India”. He was a ceaseless crusader of human rights and had a passion for compassion. He was a rare combination of a legislator, a minster and a judge.

Justice Krishna Iyer was born on November 15, 1915 to a leading criminal lawyer V.V. Rama Ayyar in Thalassery. He had his education at the Basel Mission School, Thalassery, Victoria College, Palakkad, Annamalai University and Madras Law College. He started legal practice in 1937 under his father in the Thalassery and appeared for workers and peasants in several agrarian struggle-related cases in his early years of practice.He became a member of the Madras Legislative Assembly in 1952. After the 1957 Kerala Assembly Elections, when the first Communist government in Kerala headed by E.M.S. Namboodiripad came to power, he held portfolios such as law, justice, home, irrigation, power, prisons, social welfare and inland navigation in the. He passed several pieces of people-oriented legislations during his tenure as a minister. He resumed his legal practice in August 1959 and continued the legal profession after he lost the 1965 Assembly election. He was appointed a judge of the Kerala High Court on July 2, 1968. He served as a Member of the Law Commission from 1971 to 1973.He was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court on July 17, 1973, and retired on November, 14, 1980.

Justice Krishna Iyer’s has delivered landmark judgments during his tenure as a judge.His judgments are considered to be a thesis on the subject. His judgments have a human touch and are presented in an artistic manner. Let us have a look at some of his judgments that have created history and revolutionized the legal world.

He threw open the doors of the judiciary to every person of the country by emphasizing on the need for relaxing the rule of locus standi, in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, he declared the practice of keeping undertrials with convicts in jail as inhumane, which earned him the title of “Father of prison jurisprudence”.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, Justice Iyer noted, “Personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person. Travel makes liberty worthwhile.” He expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the liberty to travel.

The jurisprudence of bail was humanized by Justice Iyer, which has been a lasting contribution to the liberation of under trial prisoners. In G Narasimhulu judgment, he observed, “It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one rendered to custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted."

By interpreting Article 21 of the Indian Constitution Justice Iyer’s Bench directed the State to provide free legal services to an accused person in custody. He profoundly contributed to prison jurisprudence and humanisation of the sentencing system in India.

His greatest contribution to our constitutional jurisprudence is his landmark judgment in Samsher Singh. In whether the President or Governor have independent power than the Cabinet Justice Krishna Iyer observed, "the President, like the King, has not merely been constitutionally romanticized but actually vested with a pervasive and persuasive role…he is not rival center of power in any sense…the President and Governor shall exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their Ministers save in a few well-known exceptional situations like (a) the choice of Prime Minister (Chief Minister), restricted though this choice is by the paramount consideration that he should command a majority in the House; (b) the dismissal of a Government which has lost its majority in the House but refuses to quit office; (c) the dissolution of the House where an appeal to the country is necessitous."

Summing up in the words of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, a former Attorney General of India:

"Mr. Krishna Iyer has a heart whose natural generosity and glowing warmth would scorch out any trace of malice or meanness. He cannot nurture a grudge towards any one, including unkind critics who have approached him with singular lack of humanity and understanding and who in learned tomes have raged and raged against the spreading of the light. Like Newman’s True Gentleman, he had too much good sense to be affronted by insults and was too well employed to remember injuries…There are judges who are more erudite than Justice Krishna Iyer, judges who have an excellent memory for Supreme Court and House of Lord citations, judges who can master the record of a case in a few minutes. But the one essential quality that distinguishes him from his judicial brethren and puts him in a class of his own is compassion. He took human suffering seriously and dispensed justice with compassion, which he possessed in abundance .”

His loss is a great loss to the legal fraternity.  He was not only a legislator, a minister and a judge but he was humane too. The humaneness made him stand apart from his peers. Let us all pay our tributes to such a great personality. Let us all pledge that we will be compassionate to our fellow human beings and work for the holistic development of the society at large.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Parallel Judiciary in India

Author - Abhishek Chansoria, 1st Year student of IIT Law School (RGSOIPL).

The governance of our country rests on three pillars: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It is the Constitution which has bestowed these separate powers on the three. The same Constitution has left some elbow-space for the personal laws of an individual providing for non-intervention of the State in the personal issue of an individual, namely religion. But, what happens when this personal religious institution takes up the job of any of the three? Will the policy of non-intervention still hold its importance? If it doesn’t, then when does the need of such intervention arise?

The major personal laws in force in India are the Hindu and the Muslim laws. Every common law has been formed and subsequently evolved according to the comforts of the society. Be it the patriarchal northern India based on Aryan lines, or be it matriarchal southern and eastern India influenced by the Dravidian society, both have been churned with time to suit the ever growing society. Whereas it is evident that the Muslim laws have a heavy bias towards the male counterparts, the Hindu polygamy practices before the Srinivasa Aiyar v. Saraswathi Ammal, 1951 and the subsequent Hindu Marriage Act 1955 also reflect the plight of women. The government’s stance to abolish polygamy in Hindus was a blazing example of a legislation driving a social change.

In the Muslim communities, the practice of issuing Fatwa is a grave over-exercise of jurisdiction by an institution. In the judgment given by the Supreme Court of India in Vishwa LochanMadan v. Union of India, fundamental rights given to the people are considered to be above personal and religious norms. Article 13 of the Constitution states that every law which is in contravention with the Constitution is void. From the very first day of the enactment of the Constitution, certain fundamental rights have been recognized. Hence, every action violating our rights is void. A fatwa is not given a legal mandate and hence it has been left at the choice of the individual to follow the same. The authorities issuing Fatwa do not draw its power from any legislation, hence, the concept of deductive reasoning simply tells us that the Fatwa also do not hold any legal sanctity. In the words of the Supreme Court- “The power to adjudicate a provision must flow from a ‘validly made law’”, which involves the legislature. The religious institution should exercise advisory actions pertaining to the need for a balanced solution approach.

The khap panchayats are infamous for their orthodox and conservative stand in inter-caste marriages. A myriad of cases of honor killings are coming forward with every passing day.

Along with the analysis of the need to check certain authorities from over-stepping actions, it is imperative to acknowledge the social evils addressed by the same authorities. As we know that a Muslim community in Pakistan and a Muslim community in India have the same religious genesis but what is different between the two societies is the political will which has driven them further. On one hand, the handful amendments in the Muslim personal law show the political escapism in our country, and on the other hand, the drive to acknowledge social changes which is a proof of political desperation is surfacing in Pakistan.

In the last week of May, 2014 the religious leaders of Pakistan issued a Fatwa stating honor killings as an "Un-Islamic" act. The leaders opined that daughters are the gifts by Allah and being dishonored by them is forbidden in Islam. There is a need to look at our neighbour’s religious approach to the common laws.

A fatwa which is issued for curbing the practice of honor killing, hence upholding the right to life, liberty, free will of women and men shows the institutional responsiveness to address the social evil. Whereas, the authorities in India issue a fatwa, which is prima facie so retrograde, "advising" a rape victim to marry the rapist, who is her father-in-law. The fatwa also stated that her husband can no longer keep any physical relationship with her as it is written in Quran that "Marry not the women whom your father copulated".   

 

Talking about the khap panchayat’s involvement in evils like honor killing, a question on the authority of the Khap needs to be answered. From where do they draw the power to adjudicate such draconian laws? The Supreme Court of India has used the term “kangaroo courts” for such institutions. But, a critical point of analysis remains that, though we have a well written Constitution along with its machinery, still the provisions dictated by such authorities are recognized by a large part of the population under them. Doesn’t it show the social status and acceptance enjoyed by them?

As it is well evident that the three pillars of our democracy have somewhere lacked in filling this lacuna between the people (affected by such Fatwa and Khap) and their constitutional rights, hence it will be prudent to use the authorities already present on the ground for the constitutional realization. This can be done by strict and careful regulation on such institutions and there powers. The khappanchayats have been blamed for the honor killings, but recently a Khap namely, 'Satrol KhapPanchayat' in Narnid village, Haryana, has come forward with its ideology which is far from conservatism. The Khap hasagreed with the truth that interaction between men and women has increased andstopping it is not possible. The decision given by the five-member committee has loosened the knot by allowing marriages in 42 villages which were earlier banned. Also, it has shown desperation is curbing female foeticide, bride sharing and dowry.

We can conclude that whatever be the laws; personal or statutory, should not go against the Constitution. The Constitution is above every personal law as it ensures happiness for all not on the basis of religion but on the lines of individual dignity.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More