Justice V Parthiban’s flight to Judicial Glory Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan) Judge: V Parthiban. Petitioner: Ms. R Vaigai. Air India: Mr. N G R Prasad. Well, those in the know of things know. Mr. Prasad was senior to both R Vaigai and Parthiban. Prasad, Vaigai and Parthiban rarely

Justice V Parthiban’s flight to Judicial Glory
Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan)

Judge: V Parthiban. Petitioner: Ms. R Vaigai. Air India: Mr. N G R Prasad. Well, those in the know of things know. Mr. Prasad was senior to both R Vaigai and Parthiban. Prasad, Vaigai and Parthiban rarely tangled in Court, as practitioners. They were on the same ‘side’. Ever since Parthiban got elevated as Judge, they have tangled multiple times. Particularly Prasad v. Parthiban tussles have been lovely to watch. At the intellectual level. Taunting and Mocking at each other. But always in a dignified way.

That this trio should come together or meet each other or meet in the middle or the youngest of them Parthiban ‘presiding’ over the cause relating to the iconic legendary Air India Maharajahmade great viewing and even more alluring reading. And Parthiban, with his ever felicitous language has gone for broke over the broken PSU Maharajah to restore it to its old divine visage and flight, makes for brilliant prose. Parthiban has gone lyrical.

VPNJ ( yo be politically correct), has batted with aplomb. Faced the bouncers, beamers, doosras, teesras and even underarmers, with his customary cool and disarming candour and smile, one can detect in the words.

Batting for (Air) India

“…….this Court is fully convinced that the employees’ interests have been protected to the hilt in the given situation. The Government appeared to have taken every care not to jettison the interests of its employees, leaving them in the lurch, in the bargain. Considering the fact that Air India Ltd prior to the disinvestment initiative was a sinking company, a fortuitous transformation has happened for their own good. In the opinion of this Court, various conditions of service under the SPA are the best that the Government could wrangle out from the fourth respondent towards ensuring protection of the employees’ interest. Therefore, the employees conjecturing they have been treated unfairly and unjustly is misplaced and misconceived.”’

Batting for Employees

“ As far as the statement or assurance that condition of service will be continued or changed only in accordance with law is not an undertaking or commitment. It is inviolable mandate of the rule of law dictated by the constitutional governance. Any decision concerning the service conditions would obviously be taken within the framework of the existing laws on the subject. In case of any infraction, deviation or violation of any existing laws, the employees always have a recourse to judicial mechanisms. This Court therefore need not assume any advisory role in emphasizing the sacrosanct legal position as every private or public entity is mandated to act in accordance with law. “

Air India back where it belongs

J R D Tata was furious when Jawaharlal Nehru took over his favourite airline. Ratan Tata vowed to take it back. And Narendra Modi quietly played his cards. And delivered a benevolent coup for ( Air) India. And Parthiban has given the seal of approval.

A cricketing similie

Parthiban was the batsman at the crease. He defended like Sunil Manohar Gavaskar. He innovated like Gundappa Vishwanath. Was at times swashbuckling like Virender Sehwag. An unbeatable combination. It was a providential call that the cause came calling on Madras High Court. And the trio exposed to each other for several decades get to deal with it. It could not get any better.

Well one has a tint of sadness even as one pays plaudits to the law lord, who always behaved as a simple commoner. Not just a commoner. No halo or crown he wore. Feet always grounded and conduct in Court robust, amiable with a visible streak of not suffering fools and completing the Board, day in and day out, with hours to spare and yet winning by a mile and smile.

Always used the Bat like a surgeon’s scalpel. Not a sledgehammer.He never bled the litigant or the practitioner. He cleverly used the language to play around and as a balm. Those who lost never felt humiliated. They accepted defeat with grace. As for the winner, he put them in their place too. That was who he was.

Retirement Age

Alas my friend would be attaining all of sixty two years on 23rd April,2022, and forced to step out of the Bench. He is fine with it. If anything, looking forward for multiple reasons. Let us not go there.

It is a pity that even as he was settling down in a short tenure of just 7 years plus he has got to go so early. Time has whizzed past. Sixty two years was fixed as on Jan 26,1950 when framers let our Constitution go live. Longevity today is 70 plus. We are debating and discussing whether retirement ages of Judges’ can be enhanced. They better be. Judges age with wisdom. My friend Parthiban is far wiser than he was a decade ago. Judgeship has refined his unknown and unrevealed skills. Time Parliament did its duty to grant extended lease to the brethren on the Constitutional courts as the longer they serve, the better they become. At least those in the Justice Parthiban genre.

He has battled brilliantly in the longer version ( huge causes mandating long orders) as if a Sehwag triple ton. And batted effectively in the one day versions. T20 has seen him middle the ball from delivery one and even engaged in ‘heave hos’ ( read as ruthless dismissals) to quickly close.

His Record at the Crease

Take his POCSO verdict in April,2019- that consensual sex, bodily contact or allied acts after the age of 16 be excluded from the ambit of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). To this end, Justice V Parthiban recommended that the definition of “child” under Section 2(d) of POCSO be amended and reduced to 16 instead of 18 years of age. The issue is alive and kicking having been escalated to Supreme Court.

He wrote a stinging verdict giving teeth and meaning Human Rights Commissions. On Feb,2021- writing for the Full Bench, VPNJ said – That State had no discretion to avoid implementation of the recommendation and in case the State was aggrieved, it could only resort to the legal remedy of seeking a judicial review of the recommendations of the Commission. It also declared the Commission could order the recovery of compensation from the State and payable to the victims of the violation of human rights under Sub Clause (a)(i) of Section 18 of the Act and the State, in turn, could recover the compensation paid, from the officers of the State who had been found to be responsible for causing the human rights violation.

And on 7th Oct,2021, writing for another Full Bench he taunted the urban class not naxals on their civic duties- Read this, you would agree with no demur. The Full Bench said, “ When every citizen is a waste generator, he/she cannot expect his/her waste to go somewhere else… The right to disown the waste generated by every citizen is no more available and such luxury is not to be made available any more in this era… Decentralisation of processing of waste is a civic imperative due to the alarming shrinkage of urban space.”

Authoring the verdict for the Bench, Justice Parthiban wrote: “It cannot be the case of the citizens or the people that no matter what the development going all around them and yet, no waste disposal facility to be made available nearer to them. Such attitude ought to change with the times we live in and whole-hearted participation of all citizens will only make the solid waste-management policy successful.”

And on 4th Dec,2021, finding a catena of family and child custody cases engulfing the Original Side of the high court he single handedly revisited a 31 year legacy and boldly concluded – From the above discussion based on a catena of case-law on the afore-said issue, it was held that the Full Bench (Madras High) court was not right in assuming a jurisdiction which it has been excluded from entertaining on legislative intendment and language. And thus the verdict in Mary Thomas (Mad) (FB) does not seem to be good law then and as on date as well.”.

VPNJ ruled that such ‘family’ matters belonged to Family Courts alone. While he could have himself concluded the issue,judicial discipline and propriety compelled him to refer it to a larger Bench. And by orders dt. 8th March,2022, a three judges bench has referred it to an even larger bench, of possibly five. Parthibanspeak makes good law. Handled even a humongous tax cause of sensitive proportions adroitly to get its wings clipped to return the confidence reposed in him by an erudite Chief Justice in Justice A P Sahi. Well done.

An All-rounder

Though a solid batsman with defence and versatile stroke play at his command, he proved be an all rounder. The varied portfolios he handled and excelled is unmatched. He surprised himself at one level by adapting quickly and took to new waves as fish to water.

Humility Thy Name

Yet, he continued to be his humble self. In an Adheenam case,while alluding to religious and secular issues’ debate, he said- Don’t assume that constitutional courts are the repository of all knowledge. They do not have any divine right or faculty of that kind .

But what took the cake was his verdict recalling his own order as a ‘mistake’. Read his unique pronouncement. A touching and moving admission and a lesson in humility to embrace.

On 12.04.2019 VPNJ held that courts of law should be magnanimous enough to accept mistakes committed by them and immediately recall judgments passed without following the principles of natural justice. He also said that a court should never attempt “to shield itself by holding on to its judgment as if the verdict was so infallible.”

Justice V. Parthiban said: “The ultimate aim of a court is to secure the ends of justice and, in case the court finds that an order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, affecting the life and liberty of the citizens of this country, the court has to live up to the expectation of the citizens than shield itself by holding on to its judgment as if the verdict was infallible even in the face of the mandatory and procedural violation and constitutional infraction.”

The judge went on to state that only if the court accepts its mistakes and rectifies them, “the majesty of the court and the prestige of justice delivery system would stand enhanced in the eyes of the litigants.” The observations were made while recalling a judgment passed by the court on January 7, sentencing two individuals to two years imprisonment without affording them an opportunity of a hearing.

Inspiring Faculties

Sat and decided with intelligence, skill, balance and equanimity not given to many and even when he was seemingly angry. It was because he was anguished that the practitioners were not doing their homework, updating themselves and appeared devoted to commerce alone. Even that he understood as he chose to give them at least a chocolate or a biscuit, if the pursued cause was worthless and futile. He was furious that practitioners were not being fair and selective in ignoring that their avoidable causes ate into court’s limited and valuable quality judicial time.

(Air) India Verdict

Coming in the series of his astonishing sequence of classy scores, is this 11th March,2022, 133 page blinder in Air India case. Struck a beautiful balance between corporatisation, commerce and welfarism in labour jurisprudence. The verdict has come in for high praise that it has cleared the decks for the Maharajah to fly. The grounded airline, in any and every sense of the term has been unshackled and Justice Parthiban appears to have removed any possible hiccups on its flight path and safe, secure flight as India’s premier airline.

What a blemishless knock

In the meanwhile, let us hope that Parliament wakes up to give a longer lease of life to judges of constitutional courts to contribute their mite longer than now which is long overdue. It may be too late to let Parthiban continue.

Parthiban, my friend may be tired writing lengthy pronouncements. But surely fit and agile to pad up again for another innings after 23rd April,2022. He and his verdicts would surely be sorely missed. Whether he enjoyed every minute on the Bench or not, he/his verdicts gave so much,legal and literary pleasure, so rare to by days. Seeing him on and off the bench one was certain that he took to the crease with abundance of confidence and scored runs in a chance less innings, at will and with ease.

( Author is practising advocate in the Madras High Court)