Read Time: 20 minutes

“These 7 years have been the most difficult, gruelling years of my life. I can tell you it is no cakewalk. Having been on both the sides – This side is much much more difficult. You have to read much more. I can’t say that I enjoyed every minute of being a Judge – I certainly enjoyed writing Judgments – I believe there is a legitimate expectation in the minds of the citizens and the litigating public to get a certain quality of justice from this final Court, for that it is very clear – Merit must predominate – It is time more Direct appointees are elevated to the bench”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  – Justice RF Nariman

Supreme Court bids farewell to Justice RF Nariman, “Lion that guarded judicial institution”, as put by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, NV Ramana in the ceremonial function at Court 1, today.

Justice Nariman was born on August 13, 1956 to Mr. Fali Nariman, a distinguished jurist, and Mrs. Bapsi Nariman.

He graduated from Shri Ram College of Commerce and completed his LL.B. from University of Delhi. Following this, he went to Harvard Law School to pursue LLM.

He joined the Bar as an advocate in 1979 and was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in 1993.

He was appointed as the Solicitor General of India in 2011 and elevated as a Supreme Court judge in July, 2014.

Reminiscences shared By Lawyers

 Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar: I have seen Justice Nariman as a Junior Advocate, as a senior and then as a Judge — always wondered how his demeanour would be as a Judge, considering how he took us for conferences! It was amazing to see how demeanour became extremely patient as Judge.

Senior Advocate Balasubramaniam: Met Justice Nariman first when he was a Law Officer to brief him – What an incredible memory he had, we were aghast. He is everything rolled into one. He will come back to the Bar — we need his guidance & assistance.

Senior Advocate Ajit Sinha goes over Justice Narimans’ memory – “What a gracious judge,” he said.

Junior Lawyers were very scared when Justice Nariman became a judge, how we would appear in front of him. Our Generation is proud that we have seen him as a Judge, justice like our seniors say “have you seen Justices Vivian Bose or Fazal Ali?,” added Advocate Aggrawal

Supreme Court Bar Association Function In the Honour of Justice RF Nariman

Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, appreciating Justice RF Nariman for taking Judgeship, despite having a lucrative career at Bar, said,

“Day in an out, there exists a misconception in the minds of people that Judges live in big bungalow, work only till 10 to 4 and enjoy holidays - This is untrue. It is not easy to prepare more than 100 cases every week, listen novel arguments in independent cases and order judgements, while also dealing with the various administrative duties of a Judge. We burn the midnight oil, wake up early morning, sometimes both to fulfil our judicial duties. We continue to work during holidays – do research and author pending judgments. Therefore when false narratives are floated around related to lifestyle of Judges, it is difficult to swallow. Honestly if Brother Nariman had chosen to continue advocacy he would have had a more peaceful and luxurious life!”

SCBA President, Shri Vikas Singh raised the issue of more Direct Appointments and Women Lawyers being elevated to the Bench – Justice Nariman seconded the same.

SCBA Vice President, Shri Pradeep Rai recalled his experiences at the Bar with Justice Nariman with citing few of his landmark judgments, including, KS Puttaswamy – The unanimous 9-Judge verdict, Sabarimala Temple Entry, Triple Talaq Case, Joseph Shine v. Union of India, Shreya Singhal Judgment and Indira Jaising Case, where the Court laid down criteria for elevation as a Senior Advocate.

“Justice Nariman when elevated as the Supreme Court judge, was a changed man - He never made the lawyer feel that he is not well read of his case. He gave relief sometimes on a point that the lawyer himself wasn't aware of. That's the greatness of the man,” Shri Vikas Singh in his address recalled the tone, tenor of Justice Nariman as an Advocate and as a Judge.

Learned Attorney General, Shri KK Venugopal, recalled Justice Nariman as a prolific young lawyer, junior and a Judge. He further commended the recent suo motu cognizance taken up by a bench led by him, on Bakrid Relaxations by the Kerala Government and the Kanwar Yatra issue, where Justice Nariman observed –

Right to Religion cannot supersede Right to Life under Article 21.

Installation of CCTV at Police Stations, at all places where confessional statements are recorded and Bail in PMLA matters were further added by the learned AG to the diverse issues decided by Justice Nariman in his 7 years of Tenure.

“Justice Nariman is distinct not because he was elevated as a Supreme Court judge but because of the judgments he delivered to build jurisprudence in the country,” Ld. AG said.

Justice Nariman in his course of address regarded Ld. AG as “My guru for Life”

In his course of address, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman recalled his academic career, his experience & learnings as a young member at the Bar, remembered Justice Venkatachaliah, Justice AP Sen, Justice Lodha, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice Iyer, Former Finance/Law Minister Shri Arun Jaitley and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.

“It’s a very unreal thing – not to step in this institution which I have belonged to for so many years. God bless the Supreme Court – Now and Always,” Justice Nariman said while ending his address.

Notable Judgments By Justice RF Nariman

• KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1: In his separate, concurring opinion, Justice Nariman observed that mere absence of a definition (of Right to Privacy) cannot deter the Court from recognising privacy interests – That protection of privacy is a sine qua non to protect personal liberty, under Article 21 – “The core value of the nation being democratic, for example, would be hollow unless persons in a democracy are able to develop fully in order to make informed choices for themselves which affect their daily lives and their choice of how they are to be governed.”
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1: In a landmark verdict Decriminalizing Section 377 IPC, Justice Nariman writes, “A Statutory provision can be struck down on the ground of manifest Arbitrariness, when the provision is capricious, irrational and/or without adequate determining principle, as also if it is excessive or disproportionate.”
• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766: A Full bench of CJ Ranjan Gogoi, Justice RF Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha, observed, “The exercise of the power vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts to designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate is circumscribed by the requirement of due satisfaction that the advocate concerned fulfils the three conditions stipulated under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 i.e. (1) ability; (2) standing at the Bar; and/or (3) special knowledge or experience in law that the person seeking designation has acquired. It is not an uncontrolled, unguided power though in a given case its exercise may partake such a character. However, the possibility of misuse cannot be a ground for holding a provision of the statute to be constitutionally fragile.”
• Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 571: Justice RF Nariman and BR Gavai passed additional directions in light of a contempt plea which was filed by an Advocate, Mr. Brajesh, alleging the wilful disobedience of Court orders by various political parties during Bihar Assembly Elections in 2020, vis-à-vis publication and declaration of criminal antecedents by various political parties of their candidates – In this regard, the bench said, “The political parties refuse to wake up from deep slumber. However, in view of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, though we desire that something urgently requires to be done in the matter, our hands are tied and we cannot transgress into the area reserved for the legislative arm of the State.”
• Bank Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 530: Authored by Justice RF Nariman, the judgment says that apprehension of breach of law and order cannot be a ground to invoke Preventive Detention Law against an Individual.
• Hindustan Construction Company v. Union of India, WP (C) 1074 of 2019: Section 87 Arbitration Act, 1996 held “manifestly arbitrary” in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Pasl Wind Solutions v. GE Power, CIVIL APPEAL 1647 of 2021: The question before the Court was – 1) Can two companies in India prefer an Arbitration Forum outside India? 2) Whether the Award thereunder be enforceable as Foreign Award under the 1996 Act? – A Full bench of Justice RF Nariman, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, responded in affirmative, carving new routes for Arbitration in India.

Justice Nariman’s wit and elephantic memory reflects by one of his remark in Pravin Electricals v. Galaxy Infra, where he writes;

 “The facts of this case remind one of Alice in Wonderland – In Chapter II of Lewis Caroll's classic, after little Alice had gone down the Rabbit hole, she exclaims “Curiouser and curiouser!” and Lewis Caroll states “(she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)”. This is a case which eminently cries for the truth to out between the parties through documentary evidence and cross-examination.”

Justice L. Nageswara Rao finds place in the Collegium with the retirement of Justice Nariman today.