Legal World and Childhood Dreams

WHEN ADVOCATE GENERAL STOOD HIS GROUND

2026-11-09T13:35:11.234+05:30

This post talks about, when SN Kackkar, the then Advocate General stood his ground during arguments in the Habeas Corpus case.

After my father was released, Bar had thrown a dinner in his honour. He is wearing Dhoti-Kurta. SN Kackkar is standing to his left - next to the ladies.

THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY:

The Emergency, the Court, and the Constitution

How I Got Involved with the Case।। The Issues Before the Court ।। Before The Battle Began: Change of Bench।। Prostitute Virgin - Retrospective Effects।। The Question That Broke the Silence।। When Advocate Stood His Ground

इस चिट्ठी को हिन्दी में पढ़ने के लिये, यहां चटका लगायें।

At the start of the arguments, Attorney General framed two questions:

The first one: Article 21 was the sole repository of the right to personal liberty; right to move to the court for its enforcement was suspended completely; in view of this, the Habeas corpus was not maintainable.
The second one: In case the Habeas corpus was maintainable then what was its scope: according to them there was no scope as MISA was amended and no one was entitled to see the grounds of detention.

They are mentioned as framed by the Attorney General and are in greater detail in paragraph 223 of the judgement as reported in AIR.

Attorney general also laid down the procedure: he would argue the first point followed by the Advocate Generals of the States then VP Raman, Additional Solicitor General would argue the second point followed by the Advocate Generals of the state.

Niren De argued the first point followed by Advocate General for MP then SN Kackkar Advocate General of UP got up to argue. However, he did not limit his arguments to the first point but touched the second point as well. This was not liked by VP Raman.

VP Raman made a mention that SN Kackkar may not argue the second point as the procedure set by the Attorney General.

SN Kackkar very coolly, very softly but very firmly informed the Bench:

"I am a foreigner to this court and not aware of its traditions, but High Court has decided against my client, and I am up against that order. I have to act in the best interest of my clients unless I am told not to do so."

No court, no authority, no law, no narrative even by Attorney General can override the fundamental duty of an advocate, to represent his client to the best of his ability. Ray CJI appeared helpless, he pondered over for a second and then said.

“Mr Advocate General, please proceed in the best interest of your client.”

In the next post we will talk about when Beg J. went too far.

More information about this may be read in the book 'Are You A Normal Judge' by Yatindra Singh published by Law & Justice Publishing Co C-27, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001. The book is also available on Amazon and Flipkart on the following links.

https://amzn.in/d/0fNRratR
https://dl.flipkart.com/s/U_RBjKuuuN

#ADMJabalpurVersusShivkantShuklz #TheHabeasCorpusCase #VKSChaudhary #VirendraBhaisaheb #Dadda #VirendraKumarSinghChaudhary #InternalEmergency #Emergency #SNKackkar

THE QUESTION THAT BROKE THE SILENCE

2026-11-03T16:57:46.361+05:30

In this and next few posts, I will be sharing my recollections inside the court room during hearing of the Habeas Corpus case. This post talks about the first question that broke silence in the case. I was asked by HR Khanna J.

THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY:
AI depiction of the arguments in the Habeas Corpus case

The Emergency, the Court, and the Constitution

इस चिट्ठी को हिन्दी में पढ़ने के लिये, यहां चटका लगायें।

The hearing in the Habeas Corpus case started on 15 December 1975. It was a cold day.

Niren De, the then Attorney General, began his arguments in the same fashion as the Government of those days was behaving―bullying the court.

I do not mean any disrespect, as now his voice is hushed, but he did create terror. There was so much terror that none of the judges asked any questions on the first day. On the second day, around noon time, Khanna J. asked the first question.

“Life is also mentioned in Article 21. Would Government arguments extend to life as well?”

Without pause Niren De answered, “There is no halfway house. Even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless”.

It is mentioned in a way in paragraph 165 of the AIR reports.

He also said that imagine a scenario, if the after lunch, the bench is informed that Pakistani paratroopers have landed in Connaught Place and start moving towards PM’s house, should the courts intervene government’s action; should it wait for the court’s nod before shooting. Not an appropriate example but that was his style.

But the question, its answer, and the example had its effect.

It is then that the others (Chandrachud J. and Bhagawati J.) started asking uncomfortable questions after lunch. We heaved a sigh of relief.

By the time the advocates for the Union Government and State Governments finished their arguments, all effects of the first day had vanished. The mood of the court was cheerful and better.

In the next post we will talk about how SN Kackkar stood his ground.

#ADMJabalpurVersusShivkantShuklz #TheHabeasCorpusCase #VKSChaudhary #VirendraBhaisaheb #Dadda #VirendraKumarSinghChaudhary #InternalEmergency #Emergency

PROSTITUTE VIRGIN - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECTS

2026-10-18T11:46:58.369+05:30

This is the third post of the series 'THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY: The Emergency, the Court, and the Constitution'. It talks about the conference held at CK Daftry's residence before the arguments began in the Supreme Court.

THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY:

The Emergency, the Court, and the Constitution

How I Got Involved with the Case।। The Issues Before the Court ।। Before The Battle Began: Change of Bench।। Prostitute Virgin - Retrospective Effects।। ।।

A day before the appeal was to be heard in the Supreme Court, the lawyers for the detenus met at the residence of CK Daftary to chalk out the strategy. I was also present in this conference. There was some discussion as to who should lead the arguments.

VM Tarkunde wanted to lead, as he had successfully argued before Delhi High Court, but he had shown his reluctance to meet the CJI to change the bench. Ram Jethmalani (see End Note-1) clinched the issue by saying Shanti Bhushan would lead.

The meeting ended with Ram Jethmalani relating the latest joke in Bombay. He said,

“The Supreme Court of Timbaktoo has decided that a prostitute can be a virgin with retrospective effects.”

“And the Government had submitted, it does not change the basic structure”, quipped Shanti Bhushan.

The mood in the conference was buoyant. The question was difficult but there was no way that the Supreme Court could decide against us. Every High Court had decided in our favour as far as the maintainability was concerned.

But who can predict the future. With due apologies to the Albert Einstein, ‘God does play dice.’

In the next post, we will talk about the question that broke the silence in the court.

End Note-1: Ram Jethmalani had given a speech against the government in Kerala for imposing Internal Emergency. About 250 lawyers led by Nani Palkhivala filed a WP against his arrest in the Bombay High Court and obtained stay order. Jethmalani realising that after the decision in the Habeas Corpus case, stay order would be vacated and he would be arrested, he left the country and continued his campaign against emergency from abroad.

#ADMJabalpurVersusShivkantShuklz #TheHabeasCorpusCase #VKSChaudhary #VirendraBhaisaheb #Dadda #VirendraKumarSinghChaudhary #InternalEmergency #Emergency

Legal World and Childhood Dreams

WHEN ADVOCATE GENERAL STOOD HIS GROUND

THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY:

The Emergency, the Court, and the Constitution

THE QUESTION THAT BROKE THE SILENCE

THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY: AI depiction of the arguments in the Habeas Corpus case

The Emergency, the Court, and the Constitution

PROSTITUTE VIRGIN - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECTS

THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY:

The Emergency, the Court, and the Constitution

THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE AT FIFTY:
AI depiction of the arguments in the Habeas Corpus case