Fali Sam Nariman, an eminent jurist of unparalleled distinction, has left an indelible mark on the landscape of Indian law with his exceptional legal acumen and unwavering commitment to justice.
Fali Nariman was honoured with the Padma Bhushan in 1991, and with the Padma Vibhushan in 2007.
In a post on X, PM Narendra Modi said: "Shri Fali Nariman Ji was among the most outstanding legal minds and intellectuals. He devoted his life to making justice accessible to common citizens."
"I am pained by his passing away. My thoughts are with his family and admirers. May his soul rest in peace," the prime minister said.
Born on January 10, 1929, in Rangoon (now Yangon), Myanmar, Nariman embarked on a remarkable legal career that spans over six decades, shaping the course of constitutional jurisprudence in India.
"While his work as a jurist and legal luminary and its impact is so vast that even libraries couldn’t house them all, devoting a few words to his life as a parliamentarian also seems apt. This aspect of his life is not as well remembered in the public.
He was Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha from November 21, 1999 to November 21, 2005. He was nominated to the Rajya Sabha as MP by the then President of India, A P J Abdul Kalam. This was an acknowledgment by the Union of India, through the President of the nation, of Nariman’s legal prowess and excellence", commented Bju Janata Dal member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Sasmit Patra.
In his book, 'Before Memory Fades: An Autobiography', the eminent jurist recalls his experiences while dealing with the landmark cases in the making.
The many important cases that he was part of, included Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala; I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab ; Minerva Mills v. Union of India and TMA Pai v. State of Karnataka.
He had urged the public last year to retain faith in the Judiciary when faced with occasional concerns about case-specific judgment.
"Individual members of the public may from time to time get worried, as I sometimes am, with orders and decisions given by individual judges of the Supreme Court. But please never lose faith in the higher Judiciary as an institution, as one of the three constitutional organs of good governance," he had said at the Ram Jethmalani Memorial lecture.
On the Second Judges Case - “A Case I Won, But Would Have Prefer To Have Lost” Nariman lamented his victory in the landmark case of SCAORA v. Union of India (II) also known as the Second Judges Case where the court divested the absolute executive control over the appointment of judges in the Higher Judiciary.
In doing so the Court laid down the collegium structure where the first 5 senior judges of the Supreme Court would recommend the appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The jurist opined that it would have been better had he lost the case, being considerably unsatisfied with the reasoning of the court to have only 5 judges in the collegium.
In his autobiography, he expressed, that “the closed-circuit network of five judges should be disbanded”. According to him, there was nothing extra-ordinary about being among the first 5 senior judges in the Supreme Court.
He believed that all judges of the Supreme Court should be consulted for deciding to appoint future Supreme Court judges".
Homelessness Was Better Than Spinelessness:
When Nariman Resigned In Protest Against Imposing Emergency In 1975 when the National Emergency was imposed under the Indira Gandhi Regime, Mr Nariman was the Additional Solicitor General (ASG).
However, just a day after the imposition of the Emergency, he resigned from the position in protest against the draconian measures taken by the Government. In the aftermath, he struggled to find a stable accommodation in Delhi.
There was an air of fear amongst the public to allow him shelter as he had challenged the Indira Regime.
Nariman also lauded the brave dissent of Justice HR Khanna in the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla. The jurist in his book recalled that Justice Khanna while dissenting was aware that he had let go of his future Chief Justiceship. According to Nariman, Justice Khanna had resigned “In a blaze of glory”, on seeing Justice Beg supersede him. (as reported in LiveLaw)
During his six years as parliamentarian, the world moved from the 20th century to the 21st, and Nariman moved from spending time at the Bar and before the Bench to the red carpeted and maroon upholstered chambers of Parliament.
He introduced four Private Members Bills in the Rajya Sabha, namely, the Disruption of Proceedings of Parliament (Disentitlement of Allowances to Members) Bill, 2004, the Judicial Statistics Bill, 2004, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2004 (to amend articles 217 and 224) and the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 2004, wrote Sasmit Patra in an article in 'Indian Express'.
He received assurances from the government that it would look into matters on four questions raised by him relating to budget allocation for elderly persons, prohibition of contract labour, village public telephones and a general issue relating to Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 2003.
A crucial case he was part of was the legal battle in the aftermath of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy that killed at least 3,800 people and affected lakhs. Mr Nariman appeared for Union Carbide, which ran the facility. Much later, in an interview with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN, he regretted that decision. "I mean, one is always ambitious at that age. But I found later, but then it's too late. One can't walk out of the case one has already taken up... it was not a case; it was a tragedy."
Another key case he was part of was the challenge to the Constitutional amendment to set about a National Judicial Appointments Commission to replace the Collegium system for appointing judges. Arguing against the new system, the jurist had said the proposed commission would be a "complete anathema to judicial independence".
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment