Fali S Nariman: 9 notable cases of the late jurist

Fali S Nariman: 9 notable cases of the late jurist

Subject: Polity

Section: Judiciary

Context:

Eminent jurist and Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman passed away in the early hours of February 21 at the age of 95.

More on news:

His career as a lawyer spanned over 75 years with the last half-century being spent as a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India. 

Most notable cases by Jurist Fali S Nariman:

• The Second Judges Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
  • In 1981, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court gave the central government the final say in matters regarding judicial appointments and transfers by allowing the President to refuse recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
  • The court held that the requirement under Article 124 of the Constitution, stating that the CJI must be “consulted”, means that there must be an exchange of views, and there is no necessity for “concurrence” between the CJI and the President.
  • Nariman argued that “consultation” in the context of judicial appointments means more than merely seeking advice.

• The Third Judges Case: In re: Special Reference 1
  • The President of India K R Narayanan exercised his power under Article 143 of the Constitution to send a “reference” to the Supreme Court for the latter’s opinion on questions of law that may have public importance.
  • Nariman made submissions to assist the court in this case.
  • Further, it expanded the size of the Supreme Court Collegium to five senior most judges from the existing three.

• National Judicial Appointments Commission case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
  • Nariman would also appear in the latest chapter of the judge appointments dispute following the challenge to the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 (NJAC).
  • The NJAC amended the Constitution to insert Article 124A which created a six-person commission for judicial appointments.
  • This commission would comprise the CJI, two other senior SC Judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two “eminent persons” who would be nominated by a committee comprising the CJI, Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition.

• Parliament cannot curtail fundamental rights: I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
  • Two brothers in Punjab challenged the Constitution (Seventeenth) Amendment Act, 1964 as it amended Article 31A of the constitution.
  • Fali Nariman appeared on behalf of the intervenors in this case who supported the petitioners. They argued that Parliament’s power to amend the constitution under Article 368 did not include articles contained in Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights.
  • It was pointed  out that Article 13(2) states that Parliament cannot make a law which infringe fundamental rights.

• Bhopal gas tragedy: Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989)
  • Senior Advocate Nariman appeared, representing Union Carbide, and offered to pay a sum of 426 million dollars as compensation to the victims of the tragedy.
  • In 1989, Union Carbide reached a settlement with the central government and agreed to pay 470 million dollars as compensation.

• Rights of minorities to establish and administer education institutions: TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
  • Nariman argued in the landmark TMA Pai case in support of minority rights to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
  • The court held that linguistic and religious minorities have to be determined on a state-by-state basis and that the government has the power to frame regulations which will apply to minority-run educational institutions.

• Governor to act only upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers, chief minister: Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker
  • The Supreme Court in 2016 was tasked with navigating the political crisis in Arunachal Pradesh following the rebellion of 21 Congress MLAs in 2015.
  • Nariman, on behalf of the house whip Bamang Felix, argued that the governor did not have the power to advance the assembly session as this could only be done upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers and the chief minister, as per the constitution.
  • The court agreed and restored the Congress government, led by chief minister Nabam Tuki.

• Obtaining bail for former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha: J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Tamil Nadu
  • Former Chief Minister Jayalalitha had been accused of misappropriating funds during her tenure between 1991 and 1995.
  • Nariman appeared on behalf of Jayalalitha in October 2014 and convinced the court to grant bail against executing the fine and suspend the sentence passed by the Sessions judge in Bangalore.

• Cauvery Water Dispute: State of Karnataka v State of Tamil Nadu
  • Nariman represented Karnataka for over 30 years in the water-sharing dispute with Tamil Nadu.
  • In 2016, the Supreme Court ordered the Karnataka government to release 6,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water from September 21 to September 27.