Legal Notes by Arvind Datar: Life Lessons from the remarkable Kesava Aiyangar

Last Sunday, the former Attorney General K. Parasaran was felicitated on completing 75 years as an advocate and 50 years as senior counsel. This remarkable and memorable event was attended by no less than five sitting Supreme Court judges, the Chief Justice and other sitting and retired judges of the Madras High Court. In the course of his reply, 98 year-old Parasaran remarked that he owed a great deal to his father, who was also a doyen of the Madras Bar - R. Kesava Aiyangar (1892 – 1991). Sadly, few people today know about him even in the Madras High Court, but his life has important lessons for us, particularly, the younger members of the Bar.

In the list of Senior Advocates of the Madras High Court, his name is the first. He was designated by the Federal Court in 1944.

I had the privilege of engaging Kesava Aiyangar in a contempt case in 1987. At that time, he was 95 years old but was remarkably fit. He climbed to his chamber on the second floor without touching the banister.

I studied at the Madras Law College (now Dr. Ambedkar Law College) between 1976 and 1979. The first year was during the Emergency- classes were held on time and were conducted without any break. I learnt more law in the first year than in the remaining two years. From 1977, democracy was fortunately restored but the law college was plagued by strikes and academic studies suffered greatly. But this proved to be a blessing to me as I would walk across to the Madras High Court the moment the college declared a holiday because of a strike. I had the privilege of listening to several eminent lawyers, including H.M. Seervai, P.R. Mridul, Dr. Y.S.Chitale, R.K. Garg, A.K. Sen, Ram Jethmalani, Anil Divan and F.S. Nariman, among many others. I still vividly remember listening to H.M. Seervai arguing the Needle Industries case in Court No.2. Apart from these seniors from Delhi and Bombay, I had the opportunity of listening to eminent senior lawyers of the Madras Bar. Kesava Aiyangar particularly impressed me because of his thorough preparation and his style of presentation, which was unique. I had the habit of making notes and I still remember that I first heard the phrase “coram non judice” when he was arguing a complex first appeal. At that time, I resolved that, one day, I would engage him as a senior.

In 1987, there was a sensational contempt case against the Indian Express and its editors. I was asked to brief a senior. I insisted on Kesava Aiyangar, but was told that he may not take up the case due to his age. I persisted and with the help of another senior, late V. Srinivasan, I had the chance of meeting him and told him that it had been my dream to work with him.  I was delighted when he agreed.

We spent 11 days preparing for this important case. After completing my work in court, I would reach his residence at 2.00 p.m., and we would work till 6.00 p.m. I had collected over 55 cases on contempt and, with his guidance, we shortlisted 10 cases that we decided to cite. The petitioner was represented by an eminent senior - late S. Govind Swaminathan who was also the former Advocate-General of the Madras High Court. The case was before Justice V. Ramaswami, who later went to the Supreme Court and unfortunately faced impeachment proceedings. The case was to start on a Monday, but on Sunday we learnt that he had been transferred as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The case was adjourned without arguments from either of these eminent seniors. It went into cold storage for more than a decade and I do not know what happened to this contempt petition.

But even after the case was over, I kept in touch with him and would visit his residence once a month. He seldom spoke about himself and it was only later that I learnt that he was also a highly respected scholar of both Sanskrit and Tamil and had written several books.

Kesava Aiyangar, in his later years, would take up only two final hearing cases per month. He maintained an 80-page foolscap notebook for each case and would make meticulous notes setting out the points in favour and those against. Towards the end of the notebook, he would write out his propositions, with corresponding reference to the relevant documents and case-laws pertaining to each proposition. I was told that he was fully ready even when the case was in the “advance list” and never took an adjournment. Parasaran told me that once the list of cases posted before Chief Justice Rajamannar collapsed. While scrolling the cause list, he noted that Kesava Aiyangar was engaged in one of the cases. He asked the Court Master to send for him, remarking that Kesava Aiyangar would be completely ready with his arguments, once the case was in the list.

Another interesting story relates to his high standards of ethics. Around 1940, there was a partition case in a rich family, and the stakes were high. Kesava Aiyangar’s fixed fee for a partition appeal was Rs.2500/- .The instructing junior remarked that he would ask the client to pay Rs.20,000/- as the amount involved was substantial. Kesava Aiyangar remarked that his fee was fixed and this was not a partition between the brothers and himself! In another case, the client sent him an expensive gift after the case was over. He returned the gift stating that he was only entitled to his fee. He told me that one should not accept gifts from clients.

Before he became a senior, he would collect expenses for a case. His clerk maintained a meticulous record of the amounts spent. If the balance was more than Rs.10, it would be refunded to the client by a money-order. If it was less, he would send the balance by way of equivalent postage stamps!!

Kesava Aiyangar was sad that Roman law had been discontinued in the law colleges. He was of the view that the basics of Roman law were essential. Indeed, his knowledge of several branches of law was remarkable. When we started preparing for the contempt case, he went into the origins of contempt jurisdiction and the distinction between ecclesiastical and other courts. He told me that contempt jurisdiction was not known to Roman law. When I told him that I specialised in tax laws, he explained to me the origins of the double-entry system of accounting, and that this was started by a Franciscan friar in Florence in 1493.  Another lawyer told me that he never needed to go to any digest, and his memory of case law and legal principles was prodigious.

As a young lawyer, I learnt several lessons from him and shall briefly enumerate some of them:

(i) First read all facts thoroughly. Secondly, focus more on the statutory provisions and read them again and again. Case-laws should be referred to only later.

(ii) Cite as few cases as possible. If there is one important Supreme Court decision in your favour, do not waste the time of the court by citing numerous High Court judgments.

(iii) Divide your submissions into specific points and argue them in order of their importance.

(iv) While in preparing for a case, only 60% of the time should be spent on reading. The balance 40% must be spent on “thinking” about your case. (This is invaluable piece of advice).  

(v) Make sure you complete the preparation of your case  at least 48 hours before the day for final hearing. You should then tie your brief and open it only in court. His memorable words were: “If you endlessly prepare, you will be endlessly unprepared.”

Kesava Aiyangar completed 75 years at the Bar and so did his son K. Parasaran. He was blessed to see his son occupy the posts of Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu and later Solicitor-General and Attorney-General for India. His grandsons and great grandsons have also done very well at the Bar.

Arvind P Datar is a Senior Advocate.