A few years ago, A.G. Noorani came to Kochi, where I and a few colleagues in my litigation firm had the privilege to invite him for dinner. His penchant for food was known to us, and we believe that we treated him well. He spoke at length with the young lawyers even after his long lecture during a seminar in the city. He was curious to know how the new generation of practising lawyers perceived the juridical and political developments in the country. This is my only personal account with the constitutional legend. Yet, his columns and books had a formidable influence on me, like many others.
As a counsel, Noorani was engaged in 1962 to defend Sheik Abdullah, who was treated unfairly and put in prison by the then Congress Government. Not only did he do his work as the defence counsel, but he went much beyond the brief, to the heart of the Kashmir issue. That led to seminal works which came out decades later, like Kashmir Dispute: 1947-2012 and Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir.
Noorani Couldn’t Be Limited By Narrowness
Noorani’s success transcended the traditional limits of his profession. Neither his critical intellect nor his razor-sharp analytical skills could be limited by the narrowness of a case brief. He became a true public intellectual with a high level of ethical and intellectual integrity. His works, ranging from Constitutional Questions in India to The Babri Masjid Question, reveal not merely his trajectory as a lawyer-writer, but the trajectory of the country’s democracy as well.
Noorani’s life conveys a unique message. In the legal profession, diplomacy matters, while as a public intellectual, honesty and integrity alone count. There could be occasions where one will have to choose one of the either. In such times, Noorani always preferred the more difficult terrain of utmost uprightness. And this made him a jurist unparalleled. Very rarely a lawyer in India has integrated his legal and constitutional acumen so intensely with the country’s political history. As Malayalam writer Sukumar Azhikode said about Gandhiji, Noorani, too, succeeded over the profession, not merely in the profession.
What Noorani Said About Sedition
As an essayist, Noorani was exceptionally analytical. Critical intellect was the hallmark of his legal acumen that had its roots deep in the other branches of knowledge, including literature. He never adopted a textual or superficial view of any topic. His analysis of the judgment in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that validated the sedition law is emblematic of his capacity to scan the subject. Many believe that the validation of the illiberal provision was wrong and outdated. Countries including the United Kingdom, from which the law originated, have done away with it. There is a line of thinking on and off the Bench that the judgment requires reconsideration.
When Noorani wrote on the issue, he called it not merely wrong, but “disastrous”. He praised K.M. Munshi’s efforts during the Constitutional Assembly debates that led to the deletion of the word ‘sedition’ from the country’s Constitution. Noorani wrote: “It is the lasting disgrace of the Supreme Court that it brought [the provision on sedition] back by the back door 14 years later, ignoring totally the Constituent Assembly debates and the enormous labour preceding it”. Thus, Noorani criticised not only the judgment in Kedar Nath Singh but also the callousness on the part of the judges in examining the issue. In another essay, he elaborated on sedition cases during the freedom struggle. A sense of history enables us to understand the evolution of law better, to spot the aberrations in the process and to correct the historical errors. Indian courts, too, will miss Noorani who formed an authoritative resource on such topics.
Fearlessness Is A Virtue
Noorani’s respectability went beyond the boundaries of law. He continued to astonish quixotic and hollow legal technocrats on the Bench and in the Bar. He excelled not only in the text of the Constitution but also in his struggle to maintain its eternal values. There is no democracy without ideas like secularism, federalism, and human dignity, and Noorani insisted on their invocation in the process of governance. The wide range of titles by Noorani covered major issues like the growing threat of communalism, the system of governance, abuse of power by public functionaries like governors and ministers. His well-researched works vary from Bhagat Singh’s trial to the destruction of Hyderabad.
Fearlessness is a captivating quality that the Bombay Bar has taught the nation. Constitutional scholar H.M. Seervai said that courage is the greatest virtue for a lawyer, for without courage, there is no truth. Noorani embodied this forensic reality, both as a lawyer and as a writer. The fearlessness of this man is also antithetical to practical diplomacy. As an intellectual, he did not believe in flattery. Those in power, whether political or judicial, had to confront the creativity of his freedom and the objectivity of his analysis. His writing, which began in the early 1960s, stretched over a period of six decades. His encyclopaedic knowledge about the minute personal, political and historical details of the major events in the country’s history would provide for a unique sense of authenticity to whatever he writes.
Beyond Temporal Gains
By the time these lines get published, I am sure that many will have come on record recalling the unique life of A.G. Noorani. The love and admiration that the country showered on him would surpass that which many of the stalwarts in the Indian Bar who engaged exclusively in the court battles could have enjoyed. Why is that so?
The answer to this question is also another plain truth. It is not the money or professional success that ultimately matters. The eternal value of the human intellect, philosophy and reflection is an encouragement to all those who think beyond temporal gains. Noorani lived a life that was larger than life and stronger than death.
(Kaleeswaram Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
