Today is Justice M.C. Chagla's 125th birth anniversary. It is only appropriate that we remember him with respect, affection and gratitude- one about whom it can rightly be said “so great a name no praise can match”.
Justice Chagla is considered as one of the greatest judges of India. He was a judge in the Bombay High Court from 1941 to 1947 and Chief Justice from 1947 to 1958.
Mahamedali Curreem Chagla was born on 30 September, 1900. He was educated at St. Xavier's School and College, Bombay. Thereafter he studied at Lincoln College, Oxford and was called to the Bar from the Inner Temple. Chagla was a nationalist even when he was a student and had his brush with authority while in school and college. There were occasions when he was punished for no fault of his and he would not budge from what he considered was correct and appropriate. Life at Oxford and the Inner Temple was quite enchanting. Chagla participated in political activities and debates. Distinguished Indians visited the University and addressed the students. Chagla was a member of the prestigious Oxford Union, one of the finest debating societies in the world. He was the President of the Oxford Indian Majlis.
Returning to India he started practice in the chambers of Mohammad Ali Jinnah in 1922. P.N. Sapru, son of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru was with Chagla at Lincoln College, Oxford. They were very close friends. After returning to India, Chagla stayed with him at Allahabad for a holiday. Sir Tej asked him to join his chambers as Shah Sulaiman who was with him was expected to go to the Bench and Sir Tej could help him get some work. That was very tempting particularly when his prospects at Bombay appeared dim. But Chagla's attachment to Bombay and the High Court there and at that time to Jinnah was so great that he preferred to stay back.
Chagla had a very interesting and colourful life at the Bar. He had hardly any work to begin with and for quite some time thereafter. Jinnah with his impeccable standards of professional etiquette believed that a senior should never recommend a junior or help him secure a brief. He never enquired about Chagla's finances or well being. Chagla says that he learned in Jinnah's chambers the art of advocacy and the high traditions of the profession. Chagla would attend all the conferences with Jinnah in his chamber and he would then be dropped by Jinnah at the Bar Gymkhana-'that great institution-the haven and refuge for briefless barristers waiting for their brief.' There was great fun and comradeship there. Financial assistance from a close friend, an examinership for the LLB and a part time Professorship at the Law College helped him carry on in the profession. In due course, he became disillusioned by Jinnah's politics and left his chambers.
By reason of his hard work, quick grasp and sound fundamentals, Chagla picked up a fairly lucrative practice, after a rather long waiting period. While an advocate, he was also active in the Freedom Movement and in public life and also connected woith many cultural institutions. He also taught law at the Government Law College, Bombay. He was the Honorary Secretary of the Bombay Bar Council from 1933 to 1941. He was also the President of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. The key to success is the art of distinguishing the relevant from the irrelevant. It is important to get to the root of the matter- to sift the chaff from the grain. Chagla learnt and practised this at the Bar and perfected the art in later life while being a judge or holding other positions.
It is generally believed that Chagla was only a civil lawyer; but his first important case was a criminal one, the sensational Trunk Murder case in Bombay and he secured an acquittal for his client, the second accused. He was also engaged for some of the accused in the Meerut Conspiracy case and had the opportunity to be associated with such stalwart lawyers like Motilal Nehru.
In February, 1941, he was invited by Chief Justice Beaumont to join the Bench. It was on a Sunday morning when as usual Chagla was sitting in the Bar Gymkhana in Kanga's Durbar. After bestowing much thought on the matter Chagla decided to accept judgeship and he became a Judge of the Bombay High Court on 4th August, 1941. Then began a career on the Bench as glittering as ever in recent memory. His work and contribution as a judge are of immense value and form an enduring and rich part of our legacy. On India's gaining independence, he became the first Indian Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on 15 August, 1947 and adorned that position for more than eleven years till September 1958, a period described by Palkhivala as “11 luminous years”.
As a judge, Chagla was greatly loved and revered. He was absolutely fair and impartial and had an open mind. He did not read the court papers before hand to ensure that he did not form any impression or opinion about the cases. He was always in the habit of proceeding to judgment as soon as the arguments concluded. The first occasion when an important point was argued before him with Munshi and Taraporevala appearing on opposite sides, Chagla hesitated for a moment wondering whether he would be equal to the task, then thought over the matter and taking courage called the stenographer immediately and dictated judgement then and there. That was how it all began. On one occasion sitting with Chief Justice Beaumont hearing income-tax references, he was asked to deliver an extempore judgement. It is best to describe it in his own words: “...........when the arguments were over, Sir John casually turned to me and said- and I am quoting his very words: Chagla, I have lost my voice. You fire off the judgement. Of course, I had taken notes of the arguments. But to be suddenly called upon, for the first time, without any notice or intimation, to deliver the judgement extempore on a subject which was new to me was a rather daunting prospect. All the same I delivered the judgement and in the best way I could. And when the Court rose, I remarked to Sir John: “I wish you had given me some notice before asking me to deliver the judgement.” He smiled and said: “My dear boy, you have done very well. I don't think any notice was necessary.” (See: Roses in December, pp. 133, 134)
In his entire career as a judge he reserved only a couple of judgements and that was to see whether unanimity could be reached. He wrote his judgements effortlessly and they were tinged with sweetness and light – so characteristic of him.
Chagla never claimed infallibility. It is said that he admitted he was wrong in at least three of his judgements which he himself later reversed. In all those three judgements he had reluctantly agreed with his brother judge who was adamant that his view was right, Chagla carrying his intellectual humility to the extent of giving in to the views of the brother judge. Later, when he sat with another judge, he had the courage to admit his earlier error. (Palkhivala's speech on the occasion of unveiling Chagla's statue)
Every lawyer loved to appear before Chagla and never wanted to lose the forum even if there was to be delay in taking up his case because even-handed and resolute handling of the case was assured. He was kind and considerate and put everyone at ease. I have heard from Fali Nariman about his first appearance as a raw junior before Chagla in a matter in which Palkhivala was briefed and how he was made to feel at home. In Palkhivala's absence, being held up elsewhere, Chagla asked Nariman to begin and guided him through the case and proceeded to judgement dismissing the appeal by the time Palkhivala was hurriedly brought there by the clients. Palkhivala interrupted to mention with his usual felicity the relevant interpretation of the law that he was canvassing for. Chagla who did not like interruptions in his dictation permitted it, listened to Palkhivala and gave an answer to the interpretation suggested and dismissed the case. He also complimented the young lawyer for his good performance whatever that be.
It is said that in some matter after counsel argued for some time and perhaps a little unintelligibly, Chagla with his eyes on the file and his ears on the arguments asked, “Is this what you are saying?” Counsel was candid to reply that he ought to have said that but he did not. The case was won. It was Chagla who enabled it. That was his passion for justice. He never lost his temper or indulged in cheap jokes. Never at a loss for words- he would skilfully assimilate the facts, condense the legal arguments and apply the law in well chosen prose.
In his court justice was tempered with mercy and every effort was made to see that right was not worsted and that wrong did not triumph. His court will be remembered as Justice Chandrachud put it, (as Govt. Pleader in his farewell to Chagla, CJ) 'for its majestic dignity, its independence and integrity, its learning lightened by a lively wit and for its impatience to do justice.' His court was verily a temple of justice for the litigant and an academy of legal education for the lawyer.
An incident which took place when Chagla was the Chief Justice clearly brings out his sense of justice and fairness and his extraordinary judicial demeanour. A lawyer-the doughty veteran, K.L. Gauba had filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay against the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court that he had no right to direct 'No parking' signs to be put up outside the judges' garages in the High Court premises because its precincts were within the jurisdiction of the municipality, not of the High Court. It became necessary to go through the old records to determine how the matter lay. Chief Justice Chagla went to the Civil Court and gave evidence. The lawyer subjected Chagla to unnecessary and lengthy cross-examination asking questions which were personal and hurtful but totally irrelevant- causing Chagla much mental anguish. A few months later the same lawyer appeared in a case in Chagla's court. There was not a trace of resentment or bitterness in Chagla's countenance. He heard him with all patience and treated him with uniform courtesy and what is more – the judgment was given in his favour! Justice was done as it ought to be done.
Seervai spoke of Chagla always keeping with him “the company of great thoughts, the inspiration of great ideals, the example of great achievements, the consolation of great failures.” He recalled the wonderful atmosphere in Chagla's court and said that as in Kanga's chamber so in his court it was always sunshine and that memory would remain with lawyers and litigants as long as they could remember anything.
Palkhivala says (Speech at the unveiling of Chagla's statue outside the Chief Justice's court in Bombay on 15-8-1985) that he was truly a great judge and on the portals of his court room could be inserted: “This is the court where Justice Chagla presided and where the law approximated closest to justice.” He did not indulge in any exhibitionism. He believed in meting out justice according to the law and tried to see how far justice could be spelt out of the provisions of the existing law.
Chagla was the embodiment of all that Socrates prescribed for a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially. A man of great learning and culture, he was all simplicity. He had robust common sense, a very perceptive and receptive mind, a positive, relief-giving approach and a kind heart with a wholesome distaste for technicalities when they obstructed substantial justice.
He was unerring in his ability to spot talent. Many juniors found their feet in his court and distinguished themselves spurred on by his encouragement. He rarely interrupted counsel and whenever he wanted to have a word with the companion judge he would first say 'excuse me' to the counsel on his feet. Courtesy and politeness were not one way traffic with him, but had to be mutual between the Bar and the Bench.
Whether he believed in God or not, one is not sure. But God believed in him and endorsed him with the gift of grace, with nobility and intellectual humility. The stamp of nobility could be seen on his face, bright and confiding, its echoes heard in his words-lofty, witty and inspiring and every act of his reflected that nobility.
M.H. Kania, former Chief Justice of India remembers Chagla as the one judge who left an indelible imprint on the Bombay High Court and was looked upon as an ideal judge. He combined courtesy and speed in a unique manner. He could appreciate a point sought to be made by an advocate even before it was fully stated yet he patiently allowed the advocate to complete his argument without interruption. He would rephrase counsel's argument in words better than the counsel and ask if that was the point being made. And that left no scope for repetition or further elaboration. Although extremely courteous he could be firm; any request for adjournment on the ground of counsel's convenience was always rejected with the remark that such an application should never be made and counsel should choose which brief to retain and which to return and not expect accommodation from the court. He was known for his sturdy independence and had no hesitation in picking up a fight with the Government if the dignity of the High Court so demanded. The Chief Minister of the erstwhile Bombay State decided that meeting between the Chief Justice and the Chief Minister to resolve common problems should be at the office or residence of the Chief Minister. Chagla declined to accept this and suggested that in that event there need be no meeting at all and the respective views could be exchanged by correspondence. The Chief Minister realized that he had met his match.
The man was as great as the judge-a personality that was complete. His interests were vast and diverse. He was a connoisseur of art, keenly interested and at home in literature as in law. The range of his reading was kaleidoscopic. He was a fascinating public speaker and always spoke extempore. What impressed one was “the facility and felicity of language and le mote juste for the occasion: the product of a truly cultured mind.” His judgements represented a marriage of law and literature. Justice and liberty were a passion with him and his life and work were indeed a great service in that cause. He rightly believed that without freedom there can be no justice and without justice there can be no freedom.
His typical day (on a working day) it is said would begin with the daily newspapers over a cup of tea; a judgement or two dictated the previous day would be corrected, followed by a shave and bath. Then his secretary would arrive and the correspondence would be dealt with and replied. Next would be a hearty breakfast followed by a cigar. He would then leave for the High Court, attend to administrative work, then the customary meeting of all judges outside his chamber, a final cigarette and into court for a full day of dispensing justice. His energy was boundless; his determination and will power would not allow him to succumb to fatigue or illness which he considered were minor irritants to be overcome by the mind and he did! Evenings would be for playing bridge at the Willingdon Sports Club, then back home for a drink and dinner.
He would readily accept any social or public engagement after court hours. But he did not miss a single day's work or rise before the court hours. He firmly believed that a judge's place when the court is expected to be in session is the court alone. Accordingly he declined to attend the At Home at the Governor's House as that necessitated rising early from court to reach there before the Governor arrived as protocol required. The Governor appreciated the situation and said that the judges could reach after his arrival and thus they attended the At Home. Similarly Chagla declined to go to the airport to be present to receive Lord Mountbatten when he visited Bombay as the Governor General as the court was in session at that time. When Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the United States arrived in Bombay, Chagla declined to receive him at the airport because his arrival was during court hours. He went to see Chief Justice Warren immediately after the court rose, apologized to him and explained the reason for his absence at the airport. Earl Warren readily agreed that what Chagla had done was perfectly right. He said he had done precisely the same in a similar situation – when the US President wanted him to attend some function when the Supreme Court was sitting, he had declined to do so.
Chagla uniformly followed the principle that any lawyer who came to him to canvas for judgeship was automatically ruled out. He was of the firm view that a lawyer should be invited to come to the Bench, he should not seek that high office. He was also very clear that unless there was a suitable person to fill a vacancy, the vacancy should remain unfilled rather than appoint an unsuitable person. Mere increase in the number of judges does not necessarily improve the quality of work done nor result in a reduction of arrears. How very different from the situation today!
To recapitulate what he himself wrote about the administration of justice and which is even more relevant now: (See: Roses in December, p. 126) I believe that the administration of justice is a cooperative effort between the judge and the lawyer. It should not become a one sided affair..... I have known judges, incredible though it may seem, who decide first and hear counsel afterwards. Despatch is important, but despatch at the cost of justice is a complete perversion of the judicial process. Quick disposal results from a judge's quick understanding of the point and preventing repetition which can be done without rudeness or brusqueness. The judge is not always expected to be converted and counsel is paid to argue his client's case and not to accept what the judge may be putting to him. Discourtesy to the Bar is essentially evidence of weakness in the judge. One must always be prepared to admit that one's own view was not the only or correct one.
While on the Bench Justice Chagla was a member of the Indian delegation to the United Nations in 1946. Thereafter he was also Vice Chancellor of Bombay University in 1946-47. During his tenure as Chief Justice he acted as Governor of the State of Bombay. He was a member of the Law Commission presided over by M.C. Setalvad. In 1957 Chagla was nominated to be an adhoc Judge of the International Court of Justice to hear the case in which Portugal claimed to have the right of passage through the territory of India. He also headed the one man Commission which probed into the LIC - Mundhra deal. The enquiry was conducted and the report submitted in a record time of less than a month of the appointment of the Commission. The notification appointing the Commission was issued on January 17, 1958. The enquiry opened on January 20, 1958 and concluded on February 5, 1958. The report dated February 10, 1958 is considered as one of the most judicial and judicious documents.
He resigned as Chief Justice in September 1958 responding to the call of the Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru and became India's Ambassador in Washington and concurrently to Cuba. Having served there for three years he was for about one year High Commissioner for India in the U.K. He rendered magnificent service in both these assignments. Seeking to return home while serving in London, Chagla wrote to Prime Minister Nehru that every civilized country remits part of a sentence for good conduct and he hoped that he was not unduly vain in assuming that he had earned some remission. Nehru's letter of appreciation speaks for itself. Thereafter he became a Union Minister and was in the Cabinets of Prime Ministers-Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi-holding the portfolio of Education and then External Affairs.
Resigning from the Cabinet in September 1967, he came back to the Bar and was in active practice in the Supreme Court. He was a vigorous and forceful counsel and it has been said that he made the judge feel that every client he appeared for was a gentleman and every case he advocated was just. He was at his best in fighting for judicial integrity and independence especially at the time of the supersession of judges in 1973 and again in 1977. But as Lokanayak Jayaprakash Narayan said, “Shri Chagla's crowning glory came during the Emergency which stirred the innermost recesses of his heart and he became a beacon –rallying point- of the forces struggling to restore our freedom and democracy”. It has been rightly said that his great extempore speech in Ahmedabad on October 12, 1975 at the height of the Emergency is worthy of a place in every anthology of English eloquence.
Justice Chagla was conferred with honorary doctorates by several Universities. He was a Fellow of the Bombay University and Hon. Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. He was the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. A master of the spoken and written word, he authored many books. His autobiography – Roses in December- makes very interesting and delightful reading. As Palkhivala said, “It is the story of a generous and lovable man for whom humanity was not a witless word and integrity was not an idealistic dream. The roses will remain fragrant for many a December.”
A true picture of his personality is drawn by Chagla himself with great candour and felicity in the chapter 'Personal' in his autobiography. He talks of intellectual integrity being fundamental and most valued for without it a man cannot call his soul his own. There is no sin worse than sinning against the light, whatever your light might be. There is no turpitude greater than changing your convictions in order to conform to prevailing standards, or to please the high and the mighty. He speaks of holding out our hands to the stars even though we may not reach them because unless we aim at the unattainable, existence becomes humdrum and prosaic. He speaks of things that life had taught him- compassion, kindness, gentleness- qualities which every human nature appreciates and is capable of but which are overlaid by vanity and self seeking. He says that after all, all that a man can do is to do the right as he sees it and with a sense of non-attachment and leave the rest to chance or God or whatever powers there be. No philosophy or attitude to life could be more profound or touching.
Certain personal traits and qualities bring out the nature of the man and compel our respect and admiration. His outlook was genuinely liberal. He commanded respect which was naturally extended to him by all who came into contact with him. He left his family free to decide and do things for themselves. He taught by example. The children loved and respected him, they yearned for his approval and dreaded his displeasure. He constantly reminded them that he might not leave them much money but would try to give them a good education and son Iqbal Chagla says- the education he was able to give them, not only in the best of Universities but in daily life, was the greatest inheritance any child could expect.
He mingled with kings and commoners with the same attitude and grace. He was truly aristocratic- never arrogant or conscious of position. It was the aristocracy of character and courage and a true love for fellow beings. His son recalls that their one time maid servant went to Germany where she met the man she married and when she visited Bombay with her husband, they came to Chagla's home. Chagla was alone- he called them into his room, greeted them warmly, made them feel comfortable and shared a glass of beer with the husband. This attitude and act came to him in natural course- there was nothing extraordinary. He always said, “You must be tolerant and never rude to those who serve you. After all, they are in the position they are only because they have not had the advantages as you.”
He was a nationalist to the core and one who believed in and practised true secularism which means equal respect for and tolerance of all faiths and beliefs. He joked to Prime Minister Nehru that all his children married outside the community and they practised national integration. Mention also may be made of an incident when he was the Chief Justice and Morarji Desai was the Chief Minister of Bombay and the Hindu Chief Minister proposing for promotion a Muslim judge who was senior and a Muslim Chief Justice opposing the appointment as not being the most merited. Reference may be made to an article of his published posthumously in the Bhavan's Journal in August 1983 titled “We are all Hindus by race.” He writes of life, literature and culture. He mentions that Hinduism is the only religion whose main characteristic is tolerance. It is a philosophy and way of life. He speaks of India's composite culture of which Hindu culture is the most important aspect and that our ancient civilization has survived because of our culture. Ours is an open society which, because it is sure of itself, welcomes criticisms and new thoughts. The article brings out so much of his personality- great liberality of thought, generosity of heart, a broad and humane outlook and magnanimity of spirit.
My senior, S.G. Sundaraswamy had narrated an incident to which he was a witness in the court. Chagla was arguing a Special Leave Petition before a Bench presided over by Justice J.C. Shah and the court was not inclined to grant leave. After some argument, Chagla flared up and asked in disgust “If your Lordships will not grant leave in this case, then in which case will you?” Their Lordships relented and granted leave. Interestingly enough, J.C. Shah was just about 64 months younger than Chagla. Shah was Chagla's student at the Law College, they practised together at the Bar. Then Shah appeared before Chagla and then was his colleague on the Bench when he went to the Supreme Court and ultimately became the Chief Justice of India. Chagla after his return to the Bar in 1967 appeared before Shah in the Supreme Court.
I have heard this from Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, former Chief Justice of India. Once Chagla's conference went on quite late into the night when he realized that they had not had dinner. Chagla telephoned some friend who owned a restaurant. The owner wanted some time to make special arrangements. He had food specially prepared, his whole family came there and the most delicious dinner was served well past midnight, the restaurateur and his family basking in the warmth and affection of Chagla.
Palkhivala's tribute to him on his laying down office in 1958 deserves to be set down: (See: Roses in December, pp. 548-550).
Justice Cardozo said that the work of a judge was in one sense enduring and in another sense ephemeral. What is good in it endures, what is erroneous is pretty sure to perish. The good remains the foundation on which new structures will be built. The bad will be rejected and cast off in the laboratory of years.
There is an immeasurable amount of good in Chief Justice Chagla's long series of judgements, the last of which was delivered a few days ago. They bear the impress of a great and cultured mind – quick in perception, broad in vision, fresh in approach. Justice Chagla knew that reported cases were only “the small change of legal thought”. The enduring currency is that of first principles, and he liked to rest his judgments on them. He was at his best in dealing with cases where analogies are equivocal and precedents are silent.
The law was to him no lifeless conglomeration of sections and decisions. He illuminated justice and humanized the law. He achieved the incredible and humanized even the taxing laws. It is a trite saying that tax and equity are strangers, but he demonstrated that they need not be sworn enemies. His contribution to the growth of Income Tax Law is perhaps the most monumental contribution ever made by any individual judge. Even Justice Rowlatt's work did not cover so wide a field or open up so many fresh avenues for the growth of the law.
His one burning desire was to do real justice. In achieving that aim he brushed aside the conservatism which fails to conserve and which nurtures the form at the expense of the substance. He went straight for the jugular vein of every matter which came before him – 'the hub of the case'. His judgments had no dark nooks or misty corners.
To the Romans, Justice was a goddess whose symbols were a throne that tempests could not shake, a pulse that passion could not stir, eyes that were blind to any feeling of favour or ill-will and the sword that fell on all offenders with equal certainty and with impartial strength. This goddess brooded over the Chief Justice's Court but her stern features had relented into a compassionate smile, and the language of the statute was sometimes subjected to severe strain when one of the parties before the Court was
the ranker
the tramp on the road the slave with the sack on his shoulders
pricked on with the goad,
the man with too weighty a burden, too weary a load.
His incredible open mindedness has passed into a byword. No case was ever lost or won in his Court till the last word was spoken. His first impressions, his tentative views, had but a frail hold on existence; he never allowed them to obstruct the light streaming in from even the humblest and junior-most member of the Bar.
The man was as great as the judge. For years and years to come, memory will hold back the door and the counsel who had the privilege of appearing before him and others who came in contact with him will recollect with nostalgic pleasure his unfailing courtesy, his unfeigned humility and his innate graciousness.
The country paid him great honours and gave him historic assignments, but at all times he remained the gentle, modest, affectionate man.
One of the truest and most glowing tributes came from a distinguished brother judge, Justice Gajendragadkar: “Chagla was endowed with almost all the qualities necessary to make a brilliant lawyer, a successful judge and then as the events proved to the satisfaction of everyone, a successful, efficient, powerful, popular and independent Chief Justice. He was a very good leader of his team, helped to create a democratic, friendly, co-operative atmosphere amongst his colleagues, tried his best and succeeded in carrying his colleagues with him in all major administrative decisions. So far as judicial work was concerned, he was undoubtedly a judge of the first order. No one could say that Nehru's choice was not fully justified and it was best proved when, during Chagla's tenure, the Bombay High Court retained its prestigious position in the judiciary of India.”
Chagla was first and foremost a great nationalist- an Indian. 'My country, right or wrong, if right to keep right, and if wrong, to set right.' His life and work was a variation of this one simple theme. He was, what may approximate, to an ideal judge and an ideal man with whom absolute firmness, impeccable integrity and genuine affection were second nature. He never wore them on his sleeve. His splendid qualities of head and heart endeared him to all and made him a legend in his own life time.
When his health was not all that good and he continued at the same pace, his son wanted him to take things easy but it was a futile effort. He wanted the son to promise him that if he suffered a stroke and was confined to bed he should be put out and not allowed to linger. That is something no father can ask and a promise no son can be expected to make, said the son. Fortunately, God in his mercy spared him such a fate. His last day is best set out in Iqbal Chagla's words: On February 9, 1981, he died as he would have wished, and even as I had prayed for him. The last member of the family he spoke with was my son, Riyaz: they had been listening to the commentary on the India-Australia match and Gavaskar was batting. As he left for the Club, he said to Riyaz “Well Baba we shall listen tomorrow to Gavaskar getting a century.” They would not listen to the commentary together the next day, nor would Gavaskar make a century. At the Club he bid and made a slam, laughed and joked in the company of friends, and then almost as if he did not want to be a nuisance, he went to the Dressing Room and there, quietly and unobtrusively, he passed away. (See: Roses in December, pp. xviii, xix)
50 years ago this day on his 75th birthday, Chagla was in the Karnataka High Court appearing in the habeas corpus petitions on behalf of the political leaders of the Opposition detained during the Emergency. The Court was overflowing with lawyers and the public both to watch the important, sensitive proceedings and also to see and hear Chagla.
Speaking of life, Chagla said life is many-sided, it has many facets. Ultimately it depends upon each one whether life has been an adventure or just a short and painful interlude between one sleep and another. In Chagla's case, it was indeed an adventure! Chagla has been described as a gentleman, a scholar par excellence, a personification of grace, dignity, consideration, thoughtfulness and courtesy. He had a smile for all and frown for none and the smile was an expression of his intense humanity. On his statue outside his court room are inscribed the words: “A great judge, a great citizen and above all a great human being.” He was all that and more.
Seervai summed up his tribute to Chagla thus:
He was beside of spirit passing great,
Valiant, and learn'd, and liberal as the sun,
Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects,
Or of the discipline of public weals;
And't was Mahomadali Chagla.
It is said that when they make great men, they break the mould. It will be difficult to find another like him.
Author is a Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India. Views Are Personal.