M J Antony: Copybook judge

BACKSTAGE

The choice of Raghunandan Swarup Pathak, 81, to enquire into the charges against Natwar Singh in the Volcker report appears natural and apt as he has held not only the highest judicial post in the country but also acted as a judge of the International Court of Justice. He is, perhaps, the only Chief Justice of India who relinquished his post before his term was due to end. He became the CJI in 1986 and before his term expired, he was elected to sit in the International Court of Justice. He has since returned and lived an active life in the capital.

Though soft-spoken, he is firm in his views on legal issues. With his background in civil law, income tax and company law, he was considered to be a strict constructionist while he was in the Supreme Court from 1978 to 1989. He held the view that procedures must be rigorously followed, including the principle of locus standi, or essentially allowing only those who had a direct interest in the case to file one. While others were thrilled by the revolution taking place in the court in the introduction of public interest litigation, he was cautious about the doors of the court being opened too wide.

In one of his dissenting judgements (Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India), he politely warned the judiciary against the trend of diluting the principle of locus standi, which might open a Pandora's box. He stood apart in this opinion from his brethren who included, at that time, Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer, considered to be the architects of the public interest litigation movement. Aggrieved people used to address post cards and letters to these two judges from jails and distant places, citing their woes. Justice Pathak wrote that such complaints should be addressed to the court and not to individual judges. In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the majority judges freed hundreds of bonded labour, ordered compensation to be paid to them and asked the state government to rehabilitate them "" all on a petition by Swami Agnivesh, who represented the bonded labour but was not one of them.

One of his controversial judgements was in the Union Carbide case in Bhopal. Petitions were filed to make the top executives liable for the negligence and deaths. They argued that the chairman, managing directors and the rest of the managers should be made accountable in both civil and criminal law. Which means that heavy compensation must be paid and they should be tried and prosecuted. However, when the issue came before the Supreme Court, Justice Pathak wrote a judgement in which the top management was given immunity from prosecution for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and other statutes. This was bound to be a controversial decision and the issue was again agitated in the court. He had left the court by then.