Opinion Express View on Fali Sam Nariman

The resignation of law officer number 3 made no impact, created no ripples, in the political waters in the capital. I was simply not important enough”. This was how Fali Nariman recounted, in a piece he wrote for this newspaper in 2015, a moment in June 1975. That was when, having been appointed additional solicitor-general of India in May 1972, and reappointed for another three-year term in May 1975, Nariman resigned, taking a stand against the Indira Gandhi government’s imposition of Emergency. But, of course, Nariman’s decision mattered. What lay behind his resignation then — a fierce independence, unwavering integrity and staunch commitment to constitutional principle — set off many a ripple that picked up force in a career over seven decades long, raising the bar and setting an example for others. Now, his death, coming in a time when the space is shrinking for both individuals and institutions who stand against the current, when the Constitution needs all its upholders, leaves a void that is especially gaping. Nariman lived a long and full life in which he engaged deeply and widely with the public sphere from the time he started work as a young lawyer — incidentally, also the time that a young country was giving to itself a new Constitution. But it is impossible not to feel that he is gone too soon, his work was not yet done.

So much of what Nariman stood for, and argued and wrote about, will continue to shine a light after him. He argued the case for the court to appoint its judges, deeming that power to be essential to protect the independence of the judiciary — and yet he also did not hesitate to criticise the decisions of the Collegium that was established and shaped by the seminal cases he appeared in. In September 2023, he wrote in this paper against the Collegium’s decision not to elevate S Muralidhar to the SC; and called out the SC’s decision as “politically acceptable but constitutionally incorrect” on Article 370. Just as the judiciary as an institution needs to preserve its independence, he wrote, citizens need the reassurance of a system of judicial accountability. Another binding theme and concern was the right to dissent, which he believed was essential and non-negotiable, on the bench and outside the court too, in a country of great diversities. During the phase of coalition governments, he wrote in another piece in this paper, leaders changed for the better, “stepping down from the high ground, they became much less fractious and much more friendly…”. Through it all, the Constitution, for Nariman, was a lodestar and a living thing — he appeared in the Golaknath case of 1967 in which the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot make a law that infringes citizens’ fundamental rights.

Advertisement

The country will miss a public intellectual, who spoke his mind, followed his conscience, admitted his mistakes, did the right thing. This paper will miss its friend and columnist, who wrote in often — alongwith his deeply insightful columns, delightful little letters to the editor that came as encouragement and affirmation, as gentle comment, or just to tell a small anecdote that illustrated and illuminated a large thing.