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.