Ram Jethmalani was almost 96 years old, when he passed on, but he didn’t seem so. In fact, I watched on the net with admiration as he participated eruditely in a debate opposing the motion of repeal of Article 370, while his friend-foe Subramanian Swamy was supporting the motion. The debate was on August 5, the very day on which Article 370 came to be effectively abrogated.
While the rest of India was splitting hairs on whether Article 370 is a temporary or permanent provision, the content of Ram Jethmalani’s argument displayed erudition, a characteristic of his. He referred to the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir which was disbanded after the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was enacted. He asked for a copy of the J and K Constitution to be brought and read out Article 149 of that Constitution which stipulated that no amendment of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir shall be made to the provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. I had not heard this being referred until then. He was at his usual best, with his usual enthusiastic gait. In my wildest dreams, I did not think that it was the last I would see of him in action.
I first got a sense of Jethmalani’s erudition when we were studying the Nanavati case. Jethmalani, who had assisted the prosecution in the case, argued that the acquittal resulted from the jury being swayed by the trial by media. Nanavati was believed to have been angry at his wife’s lover, Prem Ahuja, and shot him to death, but out of moral sentiment, Nanavati was acquitted, but later convicted by the Bombay High Court, but the case led to the abolition of the jury system. Jethmalani was assisting the prosecution at the behest of Prem Ahuja’s sister. It was probably the experience of this case that made him defy the expectations of a righteous-sounding media and go with the different drummer he hears. The theory of provocation has since been much revisited in India and in other parts of the world and so also the concept of jury.
The first time I saw Jethmalani in person though was in the District Court of North Goa. It was during the early part of my legal career. Jethmalani was in Goa to defend Churchill Alemao in a COFEPOSA case. At that time, I was not impressed. In fact I was angry, because he had pompously put his foot up on the side chair and was arguing and the judge was saying nothing to him about this – something which if many of us venture to do even today, would invite the wrath of the judicial presiding officer.
He held forth, and went on and on saying the same thing in so many different words, and the judge was simply listening and did not even bother to interrupt and stop him, although it was a repetition. In retrospect, I wonder if it was the privilege of his background, or his style of arguing, or both, that made the judge and everyone in the open court listen with rapt attention. There was no doubt though that he had a way with words, and illustrations, which would hold the day and help him drive his point home.
As someone who is constantly fighting what are called lost causes, I drew inspiration from Ram Jethmalani in his courage to fight causes which are difficult to argue. When almost the whole world had disowned Afzal Guru, and again media trial had hanged him even before he was actually physically hanged, Jethmalani valiantly opposed the execution of Afzal Guru, and said that he had not got a lawyer of his choice. This is something to ponder about in a context where free legal aid does not mean the State paying the lawyer of the accused’s choice to defend the accused and when the payment made to free legal aid lawyers is so measly that the balance could be tilted against them.
I have watched with horror when no lawyer is coming forth to represent someone because he is said to be a person not worth representing. In these information-age times, where someone’s reputation can be both rightfully and wrongfully tarnished by the media, with no choice to hear another point of view, this is a dangerous proposition. In that way, he was a torch bearer.
Jethmalani was not without his faults. His tendency to snub someone as not being a lawyer, as he did even in the last debate he participated in, and his politics of convenience do not necessarily go down well with the rest of his personality. His constant reminder that he has to act as an officer of the court and that it is for the courts to decide after hearing the arguments, lingers.
One can only conclude with a part of his poem:
Sometimes in the dark of the night,
To see if it is still breathing,
For it’s dying a slow death
I feel sad, yet a little thankful that it's not my child.
I cannot look at myself in the mirror,
When people fight over caste, creed and religion.
I tell myself that my country is going to the dogs,
I blame the corrupt politicians,
Absolving myself of all responsibilities
Breathing is dangerous in the smog ridden metropolis,
I take my car to work daily,
Not taking the metro, not trying car pool.
One car won't make a difference, I think
So when in the dark of the night,
And find it still breathing
Daily, bit by bit, I kill it, I bury it.
(Albertina Almeida is a lawyer and human rights