Nudged by Nariman

On a weary Wednesday if one were to visit my office, they would often see a messy desk filled with big fat books lying open, laptop and iPad with multiple tabs, some paperwork lying here and there with a charger on top as paper weight, a couple of files used as an elevation for keeping my phone and EarPods and an empty cup of tea or coffee along with an open box of chocolates or cookies hidden carefully between all of these. Invariably, the desk at home would have even more clutter with all memorabilia, collectibles, pictures and a hand gripper in addition to all things mentioned above. When seniors and even peers try to explain to me about the importance of a neat desk in front of clients – I sheepishly smile and tell them – “Fali Nariman had a messy desk too. Looks like I am on the right path.”

As a kid, all I knew was that Fali S. Nariman is a very senior lawyer. It was only during articleship days that I read an article about this trait of his which drew me closer to his towering personality. Reading his autobiography, his cases, and other books guided me at numerous instances. I like to believe that I was ‘nudged by Nariman’ with those pieces of wisdom which I recall as the entire legal fraternity feels the loss due to his sad demise.

Listen, think, repeat!
“Lawyers love debates and they thrive on arguments.” – This is a common notion in the society which I fell for until I learnt from the likes of Nariman that great lawyers are actually great listeners, thinkers and only ‘precise speakers’. With my love for debates and overwhelming amount of factual information that I back it up with, it is inevitable to control emotions while making an argument. Frequent interruptions, unloading too many facts or heated exchanges are common mistakes which result from lack of control. In his memoir, Nariman mentioned one incident where he abrasively interrupted his opponent. The judge pulled him up and said, “Mr. Nariman it is time for you to retire.” He explained that being rude to your opponent would not make a good lawyer. Listening first and then thinking about it shall lead to a better argument than shouting out and delivering personal blows.

At the same time, there cannot be any annoyance in hearing out everyone before speaking. When I ventured into the profession, I was exposed to clients who would narrate the whole story relating to the case, whereas I was only interested to know relevant facts about the case. After initial phase of annoyance, the words of Nariman would nudge me that I need to listen more and think even more. He regrets how young lawyers today are so case-law oriented that they try to fit everything in. Every lawyer looks for some precedent that would cover his client and sail him through. When Nariman argued the famous Second Judges case¹ or the Golak Nath case², he had no precise precedent to take shelter. Only with open ears and open mind, he was able to set precedents that are studied till date.

Precise Speaking
The art of speaking, nevertheless, cannot be subtracted from lawyering. But Nariman points out that it is important to speak precisely than merely off-loading everything you know about the case. There’s no point firing bullets that don’t hit the target. This is another nudging from Nariman that prevents me from getting carried away in arguments. Speaking well is not just enough, but speaking precisely is what distinguishes a good orator. In a plethora of cases and arbitration matters, Nariman’s precise and apt words have led to great legal conclusions. Even apart from the legal profession, we see diplomats like Dr. Jaishankar speaking less but so to-the-point that entire western media and a host of global players are silenced.

Robust Integrity
While reading this piece, there would be people who may think of me as a hypocrite since my views are fundamentally different than Nariman. As a staunch critic of the Collegium system, I was furious at him for taking up the NJAC case³. During law school, almost everyday I would lament at how reluctance to change resulted in this decision. But one has to note here that Nariman was a man of robust integrity. The sincerity of his thoughts was impeccable. Such a person shall not only be admired by his critics, but they would even look up to him.

In every case he has argued, the Judges and people at large have always admired the integrity and sincerity of his efforts. In the Kaveri Water dispute case⁴, it was observed in the judgement itself that “Mr. Nariman has lived up to the highest traditions of the bar”. A lot of people (including myself) have criticised him profusely for appearing on behalf of Union Carbide in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case⁵. Even then, in his own book, he presents both sides of the story including letters of criticism that he received with a remark that – “One gets wiser with age”.

In this ultra-short span of my practice, I can recall two instances where I was totally bewildered for being approached for counsel. One was when some local opposition leaders asked for an opinion on a petition against the Union Government and second was when an erstwhile close college friend called me for advice regarding an intimate family dispute. The former knew of my allegiance to the ruling party and the latter had not spoken with me since half a decade. At both instances, the example of Nariman nudged me to leave all personal prejudices aside and give an honest opinion. The integrity of the character is the only thing that builds trust – of friends and adversaries.

Nariman was himself surprised when NDA government led by Atal ji nominated him for Rajya Sabha in 1999. He was never that friendly towards the BJP, yet he mentions how Advani ji personally called him to apprise him of this decision. He had won the respect of his adversaries through his character.

Lawyering from the heart!
Lastly, I would highlight another societal notion regarding lawyers – “They rely on their head and not their heart”. As Nariman points out in his memoirs and which is also evident in his life that he has placed reliance on the heart and head equally. A lot has been said by him and numerous others about the standing of legal profession in the society. During law school, we have literally by-hearted answers about the nobility of this profession – which to me, back then, were nothing but hollow words! However, after passing the Bar, I have witnessed the trust people of different walks of society have placed on me. Whether there is a dispute regarding dogs in my building or when a distant relative is seriously ill and wants counsel on his inheritance or when a friend living in another hemisphere has to write a letter to the Embassy there or when a local gardener has to apply for a government scheme – people have faith that my advice shall guide them to the right course of action. In such instances, one has to think from the heart and live up to that responsibility.

Even in hardcore professional matters, the element of the heart cannot be sidelined. Nariman has rightly pointed out that it is compassion that stands out in front of clients, judges and even adversaries. There are lawyers who have made more money than Nariman. But their death has not made the entire fraternity leave all interests aside and bow in respect – which we have seen today for Fali S. Nariman.

Tailpiece
As I reluctantly conclude, I have missed on out on so many other facets of his great life that have nudged my conscience and made me re-think my position. But it would be outrageous to summarise his entire life in one piece.

May his soul attain Sadgati. Om Shanti.

1. Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union of India – AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 268, 1993 ↩︎
2. I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs – 1967 AIR 1643 ↩︎
3. Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association & Anr. vs. Union of India – (2016) 5 SCC 1 ↩︎
4. Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerpasanavilaporulgal Vivasayigal Nala vs. Union of India and Ors. – 1990 AIR 1316. ↩︎
5. Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India – 1992 AIR 248 ↩︎