Adieu Justice Raghuram

The retirement of judges is a factored aspect of a courts perspective and a judge’s career. They come to hear judge and leave – leave behind their stamp, their views ( read judgements) their philosophy too in some cases. In the recent past and the near future the state High court is to witness an unprecedented list of over a dozen retirements. The present Advocate General Sudershan Reddy would well be on the way to creating the record of sorts of having addressed the maximum number of farewell speeches on behalf of the Bar since P. Ramachandra Reddy our former Advocate General two decades ago. In the midst of this mundane information is the factum of the retirement of Justice G. Raghuram. The Bar, the bench and the legal fraternity will in his retirement miss a jurist of high order.
Most of his colleagues would concede without hesitation that he was arguably one of the best read judges in recent times. An voracious reader, a well informed jurist, a sensitive constitutionalist he was. The resultant contributions reflect in some of judgments. He will however remembered for the mathematical use of the English language. Many complained and still man more happy that they often failed to immediately understand what he said. Early in his life he surely must have met up with a Dagny Taggart who told him: Words have exact meaning. Notwithstanding an aloof gait he was truly modest or wore it too close to his skin. Notice his response to the praise he received at his farewell at the Bar. He said: I am embarrassed and humbled with the more affectionate than critical audit of my tenure in judicial office. Hagiography is customary in felicitation and farewell orations. This truly reflects two aspects of the jurist: clarity of thought and expression and modesty of self assessment.
One thing very subtle, often overlooked and never ever stated in the required light is the personal life of a judge that is so important to bring balance and a sturdy work equilibrium in the career of a judge. Justice Raghuram would recall each member of a few generations of his family (inclusive and extended) and state: My family nurtured the domestic equilibrium so critical to efficient functioning, as a lawyer and a Judge.
The task of a judge is a challenge. It is not about nice cars, big bunglows, one liners at will and the power to judge. Take his own call: The calling of a Judge demands exacting and non-negotiable standards of rectitude, integrity and neutrality; once considered a genetic integer for a judicial persona, now alas presumed an additional qualification.
He was known for not mincing words. Revert to this example when he speaks of the much enamoured post of Government Pleaders and says: I quit unable to cope with the intellectual sterility and structural incoherence of the office. Harsh words indeed, if accurate.
He was also a man who brought with him a streak of orthodoxy of thought. Not ready to rush in the name of judicial activism he belonged to the school which strongly advocated judicial limitations but strength and muscle within the defined territory. “Now-a-days, it appears many young lawyers come with greater self-confidence, conclusive assumptions of infallible and comprehensive scholarship and impatient with the long gestation that the profession demands. This transformation has mixed consequences for the vitality of our system and merits serious reflection. A lowering of the decibel level and infusion of richer scholastic content, in the court room may not hurt”, he said in his parting address to the fraternity. Sane advice. Taken or not, understood or otherwise in its import, he is a colossus that will be missed. With a realisation and a resignation that he would be hard to replace we in the collective: some in appreciation, some in awe and many like yours truly with both can only say: Adieu Raghu.