Luminaries of Darbhanga Bar

Darbhanga Bar Association Souvenir 2006

Luminaries of Darbhanga Bar1

Introduction My close colleague Shri B.L. Das, an eminent advocate of Darbhanga Bar, impressed upon me the need and utility of presenting, as a model, short life sketches of a few of the legal luminaries of our Bar who put their stamps of talent, advocacy and fearless integrity on their contemporaries, litigant public and alien judiciary, and so left deep foot prints on the entire Bar and left it pulsating. In our pre-swaraja period, this profession was treated with utmost respect and veneration by the populace at large in general and the government in particular. The best certificate for an officer was taken in how he had been commended by the Bar. For sure, a judicial officer could not be remembered unless he had proved his integrity and honesty and had practiced fair dealings with courtesy. This privilege was the monopoly of the Bar and an evidence of its strength of character which developed courteous fearlessness (minus flattery). The capacity to master the facts of the case and of laws applicable to the case and then to fairly analyse and present the same to courts was considered the hall mark of good advocacy. Those who rose to legal eminence were, without exception, men of strong character and unshakable integrity which entitled them to be a model lawyer. It was strength of this kind on the basis of which a lawyer’s evidence was treated by courts as the best evidence, commanding greater dignity than that by any public servant. 1

Prepared by Pundit Govind Chowdhary, it could not be published in his life time.

Everybody may not agree with my standards of selecting luminaries. Viewed with different spectacles, they have justifications too. But to my mind all that entitle a member of this profession to be arrayed in the frontline of dignitaries is not his earnings but his grip on the law of the subject, his capacity to apply them to the facts of his side of the case, to the merits or demerits of the opposite side, and then to meet them squarely, presenting the same to the court in a language attractively compelling and courteous, so measured as to impress the brain of the court with the scale of justice on the desired side of the case. However brilliant an advocate might have been, but if by chance he happened to cite a ruling which, to his knowledge, is a good law, but subsequently it was overruled or dissented from, he would for sure to invite cruel reprimand by the court; it could be treated as an attempt to cheat the court, and contempt proceedings could very well be initiated against him. It was based on the maxim - “A judge is not presumed to be knowing law, but a lawyer is.” Those were the times when law was acted up to in spirit, and there was no personality who could be beyond the pale of law. Even the ordinance promulgated by the Viceroy and Governor General of India during the Second World War (when their very existence was at stake) debarring the High Courts from sitting in judgment in appeals over the judgments and orders of the special courts established under the ordinance was declared to be “ultra vires” by the (British) Chief Justice and his brother judges on the ground that they could not be divested of the powers vested in them by letters patent by the Royal Charter. Consequently, we have seen thousands have been saved from gallows and various terms of imprisonments. This is a very outstanding instance of the rule of law. The Viceroy bowed down to this outright negation of his ordinance and overriding powers only on the considerations of law and equity. How we wish we could have such lawyers and such judges still amongst us! Law in our present set up seems to be losing its essence, even though covered under attractive coats. Nobody could in those days conceive any differentiation in criminal law on the basis of Hindus and Mohammedans castewise.

2

When I remember the pillars of our profession in this Bar during the early part of this2 century, two figures shine outstandingly before us, but as I had not the fortune of seeing them personally in this profession, I am dissuaded from writing much about them, lest I may be guilty of inaccurately describing them. Stories heard of them are, of course, there, not to fade by the onslaught of time. Adwait Charan Ghose Adwait Charan Ghose, commonly known as Adwait Babu, was the first of them. He represented a poor complainant against an Englishmen accused of torturing and mercilessly beating the complainant. The Vakil was threatened, cajoled and coerced by scores of Indians and Europeans, but he staked his entire existence on this case and kept up his stand at the cost of losing his European clientele. No amount of money or English patronage and favour could dislodge him from his side, with the result that the accused had to publicly apologies and pay fines. It is also said that he never entertained any tout or karpardaz and insisted on bringing a junior to instruct him. It is also said that his clients were offered food at his place free of cost and he entertained them individually at the time they took meals. Our senior colleague Bratish Chandra Ghose is his grand son (and from him have we heard this story). Sri Braj Kishore Prasad Sri Braj Kishore Prasad was the second out of them. We hear of him as a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi and of Dr. Rajendra Prasad. He stopped his practice at law on the call of the nation at an early age and embraced hardships and imprisonment also. It is said that a British Judge was in the habit of rejecting any criminal revision petition without hearing the lawyer who was engaged to move the same. Braj Kishore Prasad had just transferred his practice from Chhapra to Darbhanga and had not vet established himself well in the profession. As he also never encouraged any tout and

2

Twentieth Century

3

believed in fearlessly presenting his case, a client approached him to file a criminal revision in the court of the said judge. He drafted a petition giving compelling grounds and stood up to move the same. But before he said anything, the rough attitude of the court was apparently visible and his pen had started scribbling an order on the petition itself. “Your Honour will not kindly pass any order without hearing me”, asserted he in his usual smiling and emphatic tone. “What! Am I bound to hear you?”, came the outburst of the court. “Yes, Your Honour is paid to hear us and I am paid to make you hear”, pat came the reply. The Judge became all red and left his ijlas. After some time, Braj Kishore Babu was called in the chamber. “Excuse me, explain your grounds”, the Judge said. The first ground that he presented supported by an authority of the High Court was sufficient for its admission. Thereafter the judge mended himself and began to give patient hearing to lawyers. Sufficient to say that when dictates of law were shown supreme respect by both, the bench and the Bar, a courageous presentation of the case had its value. We have the instance of our ‘Great Lakshman jee’ who argued a point of limitation for about one hundred working days. That is an indication of the patience of the judge and the thoroughness of the counsel. It would go against the judge if any point mooted by the Bar in court is not alluded to in the judgment and good reasons not given for rejecting the same. It was never open to a court to keep silent over any point having been raised and not having been considered, it would go squarely against the judge. In selecting the ten peers, I am basing my choice on the strength of my personal experience with or against them. I apologize if I have omitted any deserving lawyers from consideration. Though not lucky enough to work with him or even to see him arguing, I had heard of Pundit Rama Krishna Jha, reputed to be the “Master of Hindu Law”. I have come across some original treatises of a very high order, compiled, edited and translated by him and during our early days, we came across a voluminous ruling of 4

our High Court, Savitri Thakurain Vs Sabi… that was treated as a settler on a number of very ticklish points of Hindu Law. This was initiated, developed and brought to completion by Rama Krishna Babu who conducted it from Bhagalpur in the high Court at Patna. In the High Court it was argued out by the top advocate of Hindu Law at the time, and in his two hundreds and fifty page printed judgments, Mr. Justice Dhavale referred to him in so many connections. He also, it is said, could not tolerate the stiff-neck attitudes of the Rajas and Maharajas and in order to keep them on their correct stand, he had to bring them before courts and compel them to part with some of their property. Braj Kishore Babu joined Darbhanga Bar in the year 1916 and practiced till 1926 in which year he shifted his practice to the High Court in Patna where he practiced till the year 1942 when he breathed his last. He was selected to preside over the All India Hindu Mahasabha at its Sindh Sessions in the year 1933. Priyanatha Mitra Personified emblem of the purity and dignity of law, spotless white in dress and bearing, thought and deed, speech and tone, our Priyo Babu was the priya (dear) of the whole Bar without an exception, who as a matter of course and inevitable choice, was elected as the uncontested president of our Bar Association for a long time, a space of time as long as he was alive, after the demise of Harbans Sahay. His undisputed seat at the head of the table in the eastern wing of the Bar Association Hall came to be actually so venerable that it became awe inspiring, prohibiting and preventing any member of this Bar from behaving in any undignified manner. This awe attained such a pitch during the 1940’s that even when he was not in his seat, any of us would not take groundnuts, how so ever keenly we became eager to take the same. That chair always kept its prohibiting index finger pointed to any erring member preventing all or any of us from chewing ground-nuts in the Association and render thereby the floor of the hall dirty and exhibiting ourselves before our clientele as bhukkhars. We must, he preached, learn how to behave in general public and particularly before our clients and courts who will, for sure, evaluate us cheaply if we 5

reduce this hall into a sort of restaurant. And for any of us to ask a client to fetch tea or refreshment for us in this hall or any or its rooms, it was unthinkable. In the reading room, if any of us talked and talked a bit loudly, in our own estimation we deemed it to be an offence, sinful and undignified and at once we visualized the atmosphere of the pointed finger of our all white president asking us sternly to behave. There was a special brand of reprimand in his tone which never reached other ears even when he was chiding any of us face to face with his fatherly and preceptorly attitude and the same brand assumed rigorous proportions when he was not physically present before us. Would any one believe that even his contemporaries looked sideways thrice before committing any breach of his unwrit regulations! In the din and bustle of our present day Bar Association, it cannot even be imagined that ever there ruled an uncrowned king who kept our heart stamped with his paternal bliss and succeeded in raising the standard of this whole Association in the estimation of the judiciary as well as the public in general by its dignity and manners and this Association came to be armed with guts and dignity to stand the onslaught of any Nadir Shah with our heads erect and eyes straight. He taught us precisely how to move a transfer petition, an unprofitable and very difficult task for any advocate of talent and promise, as it entailed in its train the wrath of the Court, probability of the touts to propagate against you and risk being snubbed. But the dutifulness impelling you to undertake this must be given the first preference, Priya Babu would say. He precisely advised me, I remember, to couch the petition (for transfer) in such precise language as may give vent to your apprehensions adequately but should be so guarded as not to show an inkling of your personal estimation or prejudices against the erring court. And while arguing out your points before the highest court, he stressed, you must make it a point that none of your reasoning and statements may smack of your personal vendetta or undignified expression that my soil the dignity of your bands and gown, reducing you to the category of a commoner and unseating you from the top pedestal of an expert, straight and upright on your stand, without swaying to either side, or rejoicing in abuses. As a model, he cited the following lines of Geeta to me, 6

^^nhiks ;Fkk fuokrLFkks usaxrslksiekLerkA** I am afraid of adding to the bulk of this volume if I enumerate such pieces of his advice and parental upbraidings. I cannot, however, resist narrating an instance which still paints him adequately in describing actually how truthful and dutiful he was. In a proceeding before a Subordinate Judge, unfortunately an exchange of a very heated discussion developed in mutual incriminations and abusive filth. Priya Babu represented the side which was finding support from the attitude and observations of the court. But all along the scene, he kept his eyes embedded to the table and scribbled in his quick hand most, if not all, of the observations and statements made by the exchangers. Matters came to a pitch when a contempt proceeding was initiated by the fiery-court. The fire brand advocate made complaints before the Judge and cited as his witness his adversary Priya Babu who was also named as witness by the Subordinate Judge in his explanations to the Judge. Now the decision squarely rested on the statement of Priya Babu who had vanished from the entire court precincts clearly without speaking a word to any one. The District Judge, astern as a Roman General and as wise as Aristotle, summoned Priya Babu to his chamber. He appeared before the Judge punctually at the tick of the clock. The Judge received him with respect and asked him questions eliciting answers to be recorded. Priya Babu presented the paper in which he had scribbled all or most of the statements made by both the court and the advocate and requested the Judge to peruse the same which was written then and there by him and which, he was sure, would furnish adequate answers to his questions. The judge looked into the writing, read it thoroughly and then put only one question to him as to what impelled him to undertake thus making of note of all the utterances. His little reply was, “My conscience foretold me that I might be called upon to testify as a witness. Then in order to keep me in a straight jacket and upright, I decided, this was the best method which would not allow me to lean or sway to either side. Hence I took this note as

7

fairly as possible. This will supply all the answers needed as it has not been, I swear, recorded with any leaning on any side.” The Judge thanked Priya Babu in glowing words and kept the note on records, called both the Sub-Judge and the advocate to his chamber. When confronted with the written statements allegedly made by them, both were surprised and both were candid enough to own them. The Judge gave both of them a bit of his mind and effected a compromise, making both of them friends shaking hands. When the matter was over, both the advocate and the Sub-Judge paid their respects separately at his residence, thanked and expressed their obligations to him for representing each correctly and for being instrumental in keeping their prestige and dignity in full. Priya Babu kept smiling all along and restrained himself till the end from giving vent to his mind in the Association Hall. No force could elicit from him any bit of what had transpired. The whole Association was proud of him. He never encouraged karpardaz at his place and for sure it can very well be sworn by any of us this has been with him that he never had any dealing whatsoever with any tout. I know of a villainous tout who was forbidden entrance in his office, and who began propagating against him allegations. He smiled the whole matter away and observed: “Let him have that satisfaction. But principles are to be followed and followed strictly.” In another proceeding of a professional misconduct, I was prosecuting a lawyer and Priya Babu defended him. In my youthful heat, I grew to be more exuberant and fiery than what was proper. In the Association Hall, he very silently came to me and whispered into my ears, “Don’t relish your exuberance.” Nobody could know what he said and even now, when I have retired from active practice, I am charmed with the truth and manner of his advice. An M.Sc. of Calcutta University of the late nineties of the last century, he was appointed as a Munsif, but the job did not suit his temperament. So he preferred to be the devil (minor) of his eldest brother’s office who had a roaring practice at the Bar in Chhapra. For some time, he underwent rigorous training there and came to practice at 8

Darbhanga. Outside the court, he was the model of a man, a husband, a father and, most of all, a brother. When the golden jubilee of his legal career was celebrated here against his will, truly speaking, it was a sight to see. In the midst of all the jubilations, polities and estimations by all his admirers in general and a justice of the High Court in particular, he figured as an unmoving statue, deaf and dumb to the core, and nobody could discern even a tinkling of any dramatics in his attitude. I was especially attached to and enamoured of him on account of the vast store of Sanskrit shlokas he owned and when due to his failing memory in his extreme old age, he called upon me to supply him with the missing link and line of any shloka or stotra, I deemed it my good luck. A stern disciplinarian plus a very interesting convesationalist, he was at his best when, without any previous notice, he was called upon to deliver a speech in a literary or cultural gathering. Though he never directly or indirectly, invited any brief, but all or most of the big rivers flowed into the depth of his deep sea unasked. On the request of the Late Maharajadhiraj Kameshwara Singh he drafted and re-analyzed the Kameshwara Singh Sanskrit University Act which was adopted by the Bihar Legislative Assembly with complete approval and he was appointed the first Pro-Vice Chancellor of the said University by the Bihar Government. We very well remember his calm and quiet and his god-like face when he was boarding a special coach for Chhapra to preside over the All Bihar Laywer’s Conference. His presidential speech spelled the same benign thoughts in a more attractive garb. It was claimed by Chhapra Luminaries that by extending their respects to Priya Babu they were respecting themselves as in him they found a complete negation of ego and all embracing large-heartedness of a grandfather, as he was their colleague earlier. Even when Priya Babu retired from active practice, he kept coming to the Bar Association regularly and on being asked why he undertook that pain every day, he smilingly said, “How can I leave you, so long this body is in tact?” 9

He was the same serene calm and quiet figure in every situation, never in a hurry, never dull, never exuberant and never cold-like, always pulsating our hearts with feelings of justice, equity and good conscience. The brightest flow of the majesty of law ever lighting his being, Priya Babu had at last to leave us for Calcutta unwillingly and while parting, he was a complete picture of:^^fLFku cqf)j laew