Opinion An optimist to the last

The 1990s,when Justice Verma rose to prominence as a Supreme Court judge,were a time of great turmoil in politics and,more specifically,the executive. With single-party rule and the idea of a “committed” judiciary giving way,there was space for the judiciary to pursue the issues it deemed important,giving rise to what came to be known as judicial activism. Years before the discourse shifted to judicial “overreach”,Justice Verma and some of his colleagues committed themselves to ensuring that the law did its job. In a landmark judgment in the Jain Hawala case for example,Justice Verma raised the bar for handling corruption cases. He clearly laid out the gaps in Rajiv Gandhi’s security that led to his assassination. As chief justice of India between 1997 and 1998,he was able to push through the voluntary code of conduct (Restatement of Values of Judicial Life) for how judges must conduct themselves. More,he continued to play by the rules in his own life — living,as a peer said,“in a rented accommodation in Noida,without the trappings of several jet-setting others who conducted arbitration proceedings”.

Justice Verma,who was frequently consulted by the government and outsiders as someone who could be relied upon to give good advice,was never considered by the Congress or the BJP to be a judge who would toe their respective lines. His Hawala judgment and the Ayodhya reference and later,the so-called Hindutva judgment,rankled with the Congress,and it opposed his appointment by the NDA as the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. But after his appointment (his tenure was between 1999-2003),he didn’t pull any punches in Gujarat in 2002. He meticulously recorded the events,holding the Narendra Modi government systematically accountable for the violence. Post-Gujarat,Justice Verma was seen by political leaders as exactly who he was,and what they saw scared them. He was a fiercely independent judge,honest and happy to stay that way.

He was never afraid to raise issues of judicial accountability,or hold the many “shaagirds” he tirelessly mentored to a high standard. He had an impeccable track record,from his days as an advocate and later,judge,in Madhya Pradesh,to his time as a judge in Rajasthan and Delhi. He authored the 1993 judgment considered to be the origin of the much-discussed “collegium system” of Indian judges appointing themselves. To his credit,he never shirked from taking a critical look at the big ideas of the time. In a series of lectures he gave about five years ago,citing contemporary judgements,he drew a fine line between activism by the court and its overreach — and encouraged debate on the subject.

He was a great narrator of stories,about how he was the first to open his court on the day Emergency was imposed or how he wrote the Vishakha judgment on sexual harassment in 1997. Criticised in some quarters for not distinguishing between Hinduism and Hindutva in his memorable line about “Hindutva being a way of life”,he would just smile enigmatically,and urge us to read the judgment again more closely and “see it for what it is”.

He recalled,quite evocatively,a non-judicial moment when he addressed an audience marking 20 years of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December last year. He related the story of his father,a railway officer,during Partition,and how he aided a Muslim friend who had decided to stay back: “my father relocated his family so as to be able to support his oldest friend,so that he felt secure in his social life.”

Now,as Justice Verma himself has relocated,quite suddenly and without a fuss,perhaps it is time to use the story of his life as a beacon in these trying times. He would not have sounded so bleak,but perhaps typed out 10 ways in which to create a better system.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com