This article is written by Dnyaneshwari Patil, from RTMNU Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur. In this article, she discusses the early life of VR Krishna Iyer and his elevation to the Supreme Court judge, his commitment to social justice and liberal approach to fundamental rights and his contribution to Indian jurisprudence.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The one who humanised India’s top court from the colonial tradition that existed in the initial year of independence. The one who helped develop a unique jurisprudence that helped common people have access to justice. He served as a minister under the Shri E.M.S.Namboodiripad government in Kerala and held portfolios for law, justice, home, irrigation, power, prisons, social welfare, electricity and inland navigation. He is none other than Justice VR Krishna Iyer. He is a distinguished judge who has adorned the Supreme Court and had a substantial political past. His career, ranging from becoming a High Court judge to Member of the Law Commission of India and Judge of the Supreme Court of India, is well known. Justice Krishna Iyer has unique qualities of judgeship and is often referred to as a conscience keeper of justice in India. Justice Rohinton Nariman reminisces legend Krishna Iyer as a genius and unfailingly courteous to every single member of the bar.
Early years and elevation
Krishna Iyer was born on 15 November 1915 at Palghat in Palakkad District, presently part of Kerala. His father was also a prominent lawyer practising at Tellicherry and Malabar District Courts. Krishna Iyer followed the footsteps of his father and joined his father at the district court. He accepted varied clientele and found himself drawn to the causes of helpless and oppressed people.
Supreme Court judge who was jailed by Government of India
Krishna Iyer was committed to the cause of the suppressed and oppressed and eventually found himself involved in popular movements like peasants struggles, workers’ strikes, arrest of their leaders leading such movements. State action against them is often criminal, thus, Krishna Iyer rose to be a leading lawyer on the criminal side while representing various leaders from different political backgrounds. He was in constant contact with communist struggles and defended the local communists even in sensational cases of murder and rioting. He remained thorough regarding his conviction and was committed to the cause of justice. One fine day, Krishna Iyer was arrested under the accusation that he supported the communists’ violent activities and provided hideouts to them. However, the police were not able to justify the arrest before the court, leading to the release of Krishna Iyer after one month. He realised the condition under which the prisoners have to live from his personal knowledge. Thus, his concern for the prisoner was great and this was reflected in many of his judgments.
In Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors (1978), the petitioner sent a letter to the Supreme Court judge and thus was accepted as public interest litigation. In the letter, the petitioner showed concern about the poor living conditions and questionable treatment of inmates at the jail. Justice Krishna Iyer observed “Karuna is a component of Jail Justice. Basic prison decency is an aspect of Criminal Justice.’‘ He spelt out guidelines regarding the exercise of power by the police authorities under Section 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894, which deals with empowering the Superintendent to take necessary precautions by putting the prisoners in irons. Thus this judgement conceptualised the thoughts on freedom for prisoners behind bars and the necessity for peace in prisons.
Similarly, in Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration (1980), the court held that handcuffing of under-trial prisoners would be done only in exceptional cases. Justice Krishna Iyer said, “When they arrested my neighbour, I did not protest. When they arrested the men and women in the opposite house, I did not protest. And when they finally came for me, there was nobody left to protest”, demonstrating that if the rights and freedom of one person fall to the police one day, then on other days, the freedom of many may fall and no one would be left to whimper. The courts should be vigilant and police the police authorities before it is too late.
Krishna Iyer’s next phase of public service – that of a legislator
Krishna Iyer contested the 1952 Madras Assembly elections from Kuthuparamba. He returned as an independent candidate with support from the Communists and the Indian Union Muslim League. He was seen as a prominent legislator in the opposition and a committed social reformer throughout this tenure. In 1956, the Kerala state was established, and Krishna Iyer got a chance to represent his home in the Kerala assembly. Shri. E.M.S.Namboodiripad was elected as a leader and the first Communist government of India. Being an independent leader, Krishna Iyer was not a member of the party. However, he was an obvious choice for ministership due to his services towards disadvantaged and oppressed people, his performance in the Madras assembly, his alignment to the leftist agenda and his support to the communists.
Justice Krishna Iyer held a wide range of portfolios and, using this opportunity, brought many revolutionary changes. For example, the Kerala Land Reform Act provided legal protection to the actual tiller of the land. This land reform formed an inspiration for the other states’ land reform acts. As a legislator, he entertained even the simplest of public grievances. As law minister, he pointed out the judiciary system’s misfortune: the chronic arrears of cases all over India. He, therefore, proposed ten extra days of sitting to reduce arrears. Hence the Kerala High Court worked on Saturdays to reduce the arrears and showed its commitment to the public.
In 1959, EMI ministry was dismissed, and Krishna Iyer was sent to the House by the Courts. He joined the House as a member of the opposition. Krishna Iyer lost both elections held in 1960 and 1965; therefore, he went back to advocacy.
Next phase as a judge
In 1968, Krishna Iyer was appointed as a judge of the Kerala High Court. He was on the bench of the High Court for three years. From 1971 to 1973, he was a member of the Law Commission of India. He headed and was associated with many national and international organisations. In 1973, he was appointed as judge of the Supreme Court of India. His appointment to the Supreme Court was not smooth.
People of the Bombay bar were against it due to his prior political involvement, including his ministership in the communist government. However, after he was elevated to Supreme Court judge, even his bitter critics became his ardent admirers. He continuously worked for advancing the backward classes, not just those which the government defined. According to Justice Krishna Iyer, the social and economic philosophy was embedded and approved by the Constitution. However, due to the class backgrounds of the judges, the philosophy was hardly applied faithfully, as the judges’ backgrounds affected the judgements. In 1980, Justice Krishna Iyer said that the Supreme Court was mainly Brahmin and upper class (no Scheduled Caste judge had been appointed to the Court at that time). On November 14, 1980, Justice Krishna Iyer retired at the age of 65.
Man who rescued the Supreme Court from supreme shame
In one of his articles, Harish Salve mentions that Justice Krishna Iyer saved the Supreme Court from supreme shame. In 1975, the Allahabad High Court passed a judgment, holding that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was guilty of electoral malpractices. Thus India Gandhi was disqualified from holding public office for six years. This was appealed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed a partial stay of the judgment. Justice Krishna Iyer held that she could be a Member of Parliament and would be able to attend the house; however, she could not participate in its proceedings or vote as MP. She also could not draw any remuneration as an MP. Thus instead of setting aside the verdict ultimately, he partially stayed the judgement. Indira Gandhi wanted a complete stay on the ruling, but Justice Krishna Iyer proved that the game’s rules do not change however mighty the person is. Eventually, a national emergency was declared the next day.
After the darkest chapter in the history of the Indian courts (ADM Jabalpur vs Shvkant Shukla, 1976), the jurisprudence of Justice Krishna Iyer breathed new life into the institution. In the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), he expanded the interpretation of “right to life” and “personal liberty”. Also, he focused on the feature of the interlinking of the provisions of Articles 19, 14 and 21, holding that these provisions are inseparable. In this, the confiscation of Maneka Gandhi passport by the authority was questioned and thus Krishna Iyer observed that: “The watershed between a police state and a people’s raj is located partly through its passport policy…The policing of a people’s right of exit or entry are fraught with peril to liberty unless the policy is precise, operationally respectful of recognised values and harassment proof.” This shows his liberal attitude to protect individuals from state-aided abuses.
In the 1970s, the judicial system was attacked because of its inaccessibility. Thus he introduced and penned down the report ‘Nyaya panchayats’ to provide a solution to the problem. He suggested, instead of expansion of legal aid, that one can meet the problem by creating informal parallel institutions and diluting judicial procedure. This vision was later developed into the institution of Lokadalats, tribunalization at the intermediate level and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at the highest level of the judiciary.
Krishna Iyer, along with Justice P.N. Bhagwati, laid down the foundations for filing PILs (Public Interest Litigations) in a series of cases. PIL letter petitions were initially addressed to them personally, and one such letter was addressed to him from jail as a writ petition, i.e., the one of Sunil Batra. Commenting on this, he said: “Freedom behind bars is part of our constitutional tryst…If wars are too important to be left to the generals, surely prisoners’ rights are too precious to be left to the jailors”. Thus, Professor Upendra Baxi said about him that from the Supreme Court of India he made it the Supreme Court for Indians’.
In Som Prakash Rekhi vs Union of India (1980), the question was raised whether a statutory company Indian Petroleum Corporation is a state under Article 12 or not. He expanded the definition of state for enforcing fundamental rights. He observed that ”The conclusion is impeccable that if the corporate body is but an ‘instrumentality or agency’ of Government, then Part III will trammel its operations. It is a case of quasi-governmental beings, not of non-State entities. We have no hesitation in holding that where the chemistry of the corporate body answers the test of ‘State’ above outlined; it comes within the definition in Art. 12. In our constitutional scheme where the commanding heights belong to the national economy’s public sector, granting absolution to government companies and their ilk from Part III may be perilous. The court cannot connive at a process that eventually makes fundamental rights as rare as ‘roses in December, ice in June”.
Krishna Iyer’s commitment to social justice
Krishna Iyer’s commitment to social justice was always staunch from the very beginning. He has more than 700 judgements on his credit. Each one of them has precedential value. His contributions to the evolution of the Indian judicial system and legal jurisprudence are noteworthy. In the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage case (1978), he expanded the definition of “industry” to grant justice to thousands of workers, which the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not cover; thus, it remains one of the landmark judgements in labour law. This judgement has a far-reaching impact on small scale industries and charitable organisations. Several workers in the hospital would not be able to come under the ambit of rights enshrined in the Industrial Dispute Act if it was not for Justice Krishna Iyer.
In Gurdial Singh’s case, “small man” in Land Acquisition cases was voiced. The state acquired this land for a grain market, and the foundation stone was laid. This was then challenged. Later, the High Court held the state action was malafide. The same land was acquired later under emergency power under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowner alleged that the statutory authority was misused to satisfy the personal ends of an individual with political influence. Justice Krishna Iyer observed: “It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man’s property is a serious matter and the smaller the man, the more serious the matter”. Thus the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that malafides vitiated the action.
In the fatal accident case of Darshana Devi’s case (1979), he was in favour of strict liability. By dismissing the special leave petition filed by the State of Haryana, he observed that: “Here is a case of a widow and daughter claiming compensation for the killing of the sole bread-winner by a State Transport bus; and the Haryana Government, instead of acting on social justice and generously settling the claim, fights like a cantankerous litigant even by avoiding adjudication through the device of asking for Court fee from the pathetic plaintiffs.”
In the Ratlam Municipality case(1980), the concept of ‘polluters pays’ and that of distributive justice were laid. Justice Krishna Iyer started the trend for the judges to go to the grounds to see the actual situation rather than seating in the courtroom. In this case, the responsibility of the government and the industry in connection with the pollution and cost of the pollution was dealt with for the protection of the larger interest of the society.
Contribution to different social issues
Reformative Justice
In Mohd. In Giasuddin’s case(1977), the appellants were convicted of cheating under 420 of the India Penal Code. They acquired the amount of Rupees 1200 from an unemployed young person, with the promise that they would help them secure jobs through politically influential friends. The Trial Court convicted them and awarded them a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the same. When the question of conviction was raised in the Supreme Court, Justice Krishna Iyer held that “The humane art of sentencing remains a retarded child of the Indian criminal system”.
Further, he added that “the Gandhian diagnosis of offenders as patients and his conception of prisons as hospitals mental and moral – is the key to the pathology of delinquency and therapeutic role of punishment. The whole man is a healthy man, and every man is born good. Criminality is curable deviance. If every saint has a past, every sinner has a future, and it is the role of law to remind both of this.” Thus the Court directed the government that the nature of work provided to the prisoner should not be monotonous, technical or intellectual. Those who wanted to pursue advanced or higher studies should be provided with the opportunity. Activities such as basic learning of tailoring, doll making etc., should be facilitated to the women prisoners. Hence, in this case, the sentence was reduced to 18 months, and a fine of Rupees 1200 was ordered to be paid to the victim of cheating.
Devki Alias Kala vs the State Of Haryana (1979) was an abduction case where a seventeen-year-old girl was pushed into a cab and carried away by the abductor. She was enslaved and then was offered for marital sale. She escaped and reported to the police. The abductor was convicted and sentenced to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment by the courts. He approached the Supreme Court through special leave to appeal. Justice Krishna Iyer dismissing the petition, and held that “All that we can do is to reject the pleas with indignation and follow it up with an Appeal to the State Governments of Bihar and Haryana to put a special squad on the trail and hound out every such offender so that the streets of our towns and cities may be sensitized and safe after sunset for Indian womanhood”.
Capital punishment
Justice Krishna Iyer was against capital punishment. He considered capital punishment inhuman and was against it. In Ediga Anamma’s case(1974), a woman, who committed a planned murder was awarded a death sentence by the session court, which the High Court upheld. An appeal to the Supreme court was filed for dissolving the death sentence. Krishna Iyer, in this case, showed his belief in the reformative theory of punishment. He commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, based on factors like gender, age, socio-economic background and psychic compulsions. He believed that various other factors should be considered while commuting the death penalty, and not just the crime committed. However, he did not completely support abolishing the death penalty, considering various social factors present in society.
In Rajendra Prasad’s case(1979), he restricted the scope of the death penalty under Section 302 of IPC, and he stressed that it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. He further held that two conditions should be required to impose the death penalty. The special reason should be recorded, and the death penalty must be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances. He further observed that the special reason should be regarding the criminal and not the crime, and the death penalty should be awarded only when the security of the state and public order compelled the course.
Krishna Iyer once observed: “Every saint has a past and every sinner a future, never write off the man wearing the criminal attire but remove the dangerous degeneracy in him, restore his retarded human potential by holistic healing of his fevered, exhausted or frustrated inside and by repairing the repressive, though hidden, the injustice of the social order which is vicariously guilty of the criminal behaviour of many innocent convicts. Law must rise with life, and jurisprudence responds to humanism.”
Refreshing approach to bail
In the seventies and eighties, the Supreme Court’s attitude towards bail became liberal because of Justice Krishna Iyer. Before, the practice was to refuse bail to those involved in the cases involving a sentence of about three years or more. In life sentence cases, bail was hardly given. Now, the delay in the disposal of the case can be considered a factor for granting bail. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu’s case(1977), he opened the argument with “Bail or Jail?’. He highlighted factors such as the time spent by the accused in the jail and the prospect of the appeal being delayed in the court for the hearing. For him, he said that bail is the rule, jail is the exception. He further ruled that “Heavy bail from a poor man is obviously wrong. Poverty is society’s malady and sympathy, not sternness, is the judicial response.”
In Moti Ram v. the State of M.P (1978), the issue was regarding the bail amount and acceptance of suretyship, whose estate is in the other district or state. The Magistrate requested the surety of Rupees 10000, which the petitioner produced. However, the Magistrate rejected it on the basis that the petitioner’s brother suretyship was in another district. The prisoner moved the Supreme Court to modify the original order and requested a release on the execution of a personal bond. Krishna Iyer observed that monetary bail is not a necessary element of the criminal process, and the magistrate should consider the same. Further, he held that “if a Magistrate is satisfied after enquiring into the condition and background of the accused that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond he can safely release the accused on order to appear or on his own recognisance”. The Court thereby mandated the release of the petitioner on personal bond for Rupees 1000. Justice Krishna Iyer, concluding the judgement, said, “The best guarantee of presence in court is the reach of the law, not the money tag.”
Unique style of penship
From reading his articles and judgments, one can mark out his inimitable style of writing. He was a gifted writer. He contributed majorly to newspapers and magazines. After his retirement, he wrote the most scathing opinions on numerous topics. He wrote on issues such as judicial activism, the abuse of contempt power, nuclear energy policy etc. Following are a few excerpts from his decisions:
“Contemporary profusion of prison torture reports makes it necessary to drive home the obvious, to shake prison top brass from the callous complacency of unaccountable autonomy within that walled-off world of human held incommunicado. Whenever fundamental rights are flouted or legislative protection ignored, this Court’s writ will run to any prisoner’s prejudice breaking through stone walls and iron bars to right the wrong and restore the rule of law. Then the parrot-cry of discipline will not deter, security will not scare, discretion will not dissuade, and the judicial process.
For if courts ‘cave in’ when great rights are gouged within the sound-proof, sight-proof precincts of prison houses where dissenters and minorities are often caged, Bastilles will be re-enacted. When law ends, tyranny begins; history whispers that iron has never been the answer to men’s rights. Therefore, we affirm that imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental rights although, by a realistic re-appraisal, courts will refuse to recognise the full panoply of Part III enjoyed by a free citizen.”
“Litigants are legal patients suffering from injustices seeking healing for their wounds. Would you tell a sufferer in the hospital that because he disclosed a certain symptom very late, therefore, he would be discharged without treatment for the sin of delayed disclosure? Humanism, which, at bottom sustains justice, cannot refuse relief unless, by entertaining the plea, another may sustain injury.”
“Harold Laski treated politics as science and wrote his well-known book on the Grammar of Politics, but the art of politics at a practical level has also been the subject of comment and has been praised and denounced on the basis that it is a profession. To Gandhiji, it is sacred as religion. In Lincoln, it rises to noble heights of statesmanship. Lenin, Nehru and a galaxy of other great visionaries and makers and moulders of the modern world have dedicated themselves to politics as a profession. Of course, in its vulgar and vicious manifestations, this occupation has been regarded by literary giants like Dr Johnson as the ‘last refuge of a scoundrel’. Robert Louis Stevenson has used barbed words: ‘Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary’ (Familiar Studies of Men and Books, ‘YoshidaTorajiro’). George Bernard Shaw uses stinging language in Major Barbara: ‘He knows nothing; he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career’. It is thus clear, without reference to the wealth of case-law relied on by the High Court, that politics has been a profession and, indeed, under modern conditions in India, perhaps the most popular and uninhibited occupation-with its perils, of course.”
In one of his articles, “Who will judge the judges?”, questioning the criteria and guidelines applied before a Judge of the High Court is elevated to the Supreme Court. He appealed to the Parliament in the following terms: “Parliament should wake up and implement glasnost and perestroika in the judiciary. In the name of independence, we cannot have judicial absolutism and tyranny.”
Conclusion
Krishna Iyer, after his retirement, turned into the nation’s conscience keeper. He successfully called out questionable actions against the government and Supreme Court. He lived by his conviction till his death. He died on 4 December 2014 due to loss of appetite, indigestion and respiratory tract infection. He lived 100 years. His contribution was multidimensional. He contributed throughout his life towards social justice, human rights, prison reforms, legal aid etc.; he believed in democratising the judicial institution. He reminded everyone that the judiciary should be as democratic as the other two pillars of the constitution, i.e the legislative and executive branch. His inimitable writing is profound. He believed in aiding the justice system less mechanically and more organically. He always strived for the welfare state and gave a significant facelift to Indian jurisprudence. He is the only judge who has been hailed as a “Bhishma Pitamah” of the Indian judiciary. The values and ideals he gave would be guiding principles in the administration of justice and help make justice accessible to citizens of our country. He made the judicial system more humane.
References
- https://lawmin.gov.in/sites/default/files/2015-02-02%20-%20JUS%20VR%20KRISHNA%20IYER_0.pdf
- https://www.livelaw.in/socialist-stands-social-justice-justice-krishna-iyer-lives-centennial-year/
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
