Soli Sorabjee's Work On 'Right To Freedom Of Speech And Expression' Made Lasting Impression On Me: Justice UU Lalit
story
"When I was in Soli Sorabjee's chambers, he appeared in the S. Rangarajan (1989) and TAMAS (1988) matters. These cases made a lasting impression on us", told Justice U. U. Lalit on Sunday.Speaking at a memorial organised in remembrance of Sorabjee who passed away from COVID-19 on April 30, the judge discussed how dear the cause of Article 19(1)(a) was to the veteran lawyer and how his...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
"When I was in Soli Sorabjee's chambers, he appeared in the S. Rangarajan (1989) and TAMAS (1988) matters. These cases made a lasting impression on us", told Justice U. U. Lalit on Sunday.
Speaking at a memorial organised in remembrance of Sorabjee who passed away from COVID-19 on April 30, the judge discussed how dear the cause of Article 19(1)(a) was to the veteran lawyer and how his commitment to constitutional values left a deep impact on Justice Lalit, as his junior.
In Rangarajan's case, the SC had set aside the High Court's revocation of 'U' certificate granted by the Censor Board to a Tamil film, holding that the Reasonable Restrictions (in Article 19(2)) on the freedom of speech and expression must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not of convenience and expediency.
In TAMAS, a prohibition on the broadcasting of a TV serial, which was claimed to depict the Hindu-Muslim and Sikh-Muslim tension before the partition, was refused. In so far as it was urged that the said serial could promote religious enmity and communal disharmony, the top court held that the correct approach in judging the effect of exhibition of a film or of reading a book is to judge from the standards of an ordinary reasonable man.
Justice Lalit recollected how Mr Sorabjee's love for this area of law was ongoing and resurfaced again upon a 2011 matter before the Supreme Court where the suspension of the screening of the movie 'Aarakshan' in UP was challenged- two of Mr. Sorabjee's juniors had appeared in the case on opposite sides; while senior advocate Harish Salve was for the production company, Justice Lalit, then a lawyer had represented the state of UP. Mr. Sorabjee had observed the proceedings and taken to write an article on how the controversy over the film highlighted "the emergence of the banning itch", which was, "as usual,impelled by intolerance".
"His two juniors were against each other and were battling it out in the court. All through the matter, Mr Sorabjee was there in court and watching the proceedings with great interest. And sure enough, in a few days' time, an article written by him appeared in the press! One area which was very dear to Mr. Sorabjee was the freedom of expression, free press and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution! That was one focus which he always zealously guarded and would put all his energy in keeping all obstructions at bay. He was the best guardian of that fortress. A large number of his articles and write-ups touched upon the subject. Even in cases where he had not appeared as a counsel, the student of law and the vigilant citizen in him would rise on every situation and express himself through brilliant pieces of eloquence!", said Justice Lalit.
The judge went to the extent of stating that it was his association with the chambers of Mr Sorabjee which "taught (him) everything". Justice Lalit hailed the lawyer as "a champion of the rights of minorities" and a "human rights activist". Justice Lalit continued to commend Mr Sorabjee, saying that what was most important was that he, as a counsel, was "one who was firmly rooted in constitutional values, having great respect for true traditions at the bar".The judge made a specific mention of Mr Sorabjee's contribution in the review petition in the Union Carbide case where the settlement between the Union of India and Union Carbide in the Bhopal gas tragedy case was challenged and where, as Justice Lalit said, the lawyer had "put in a lot of effort". In return for $450 million, the settlement agreed that all civil and criminal charges would be dropped against Union Carbide. As Attorney General, Mr Sorabjee had stood by the victims and persuaded the court to set aside the closure of the criminal cases.
"I consider myself extremely privileged that I could be part of the chambers of the legendary counsel. I did little over five years in his chamber. During this time, when he fought many legal battles in court, as juniors we would watch how the brilliant mind could tackle problems which would have otherwise overwhelmed lesser mortals. All in all, it was a great package which unfolded every time for us to see and experience for ourselves. Truly,as his juniors, we had everything that a young lawyer could ask for. All his juniors shall eternally be grateful to Mr Sorabjee for giving such an enriching experience...when my time comes, I wish to be in a place where I can reside as Mr. Sorabjee's junior", concluded Justice Lalit.