[Reporter's Diary] A "hardworking, fearless" judge: The tenure of Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka at the Bombay High Court

Those frequenting the iconic Bombay High Court building would certainly recall the commotion outside one particular courtroom even before the clock struck 11am, when court proceedings started. This relatively large courtroom would often not have enough space to cater to the perpetual ingress of litigants and lawyers. One had to manoeuvre through the swelling crowds or heaps of papers to settle in.

The Division Bench gracing the courtroom was then headed by Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, the present Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court who has now been recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court.

During 2013-16, when the writer covered the Bombay High Court, cases listed in Justice Oka’s court concerned several issues including public interest, environment, administration and preservation of the city’s infrastructure. Justice Oka’s courtroom always featured high on the priority list from a legal reporter’s perspective for having prominent news value.

Many judgments authored by Justice Oka were instrumental in bringing about social change and preserving administrative accountability.

Seldom did the bench not assemble on the dot whilst sitting beyond the court’s usual working hours to hear and adjudicate cases. The morning crowds dispersed by evening, but the nuanced, meticulous approach with which each case was handled always remained.

Lawyers recall a hardworking, fearless judge

Former Maharashtra Advocate General and Senior Counsel Darius Khambata called Justice Oka a "fearless judge", someone who had an "infinite capacity" for work.

"His mind is razor sharp and he often decides the point before you have made it. He is agnostic to personalities and politics. For him, justice is the single minded goal," said Khambata.

As the AG of Maharashtra, Khambata represented the State in several matters.

"Combined with his unimpeachable integrity he makes a dream judge to clear arrears and bring justice to every litigant, whether small or powerful. Neither the size of the brief nor the complexity of a matter daunts him. His appetite for hard work is astounding. I have the deepest respect and admiration for him," he noted.

Senior Counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar remembers Justice Oka as a “no-nonsense” judge. He recalls Justice Oka as being one of the most hardworking, forthright judges.

“He was also very humane and very protective of the environment,” said Dhakephalkar.

He treated all cases - whether there was a common man or a big industrialist - the same, the senior lawyer added.

Another aspect was the judge’s awareness of the issues Bombay lawyers faced.

“Since he had practiced for a long time, and he had a very good practice, he was aware of the problems that lawyers faced and the problems with respect to the administration. So he always tried to improvise the administration of justice...And according to me, the most important thing was that he tried to improve the administration of justice wherever he went, whether Bombay or Karnataka,” Dhakephalkar pointed out.

He highlighted how Justice Oka managed his docket of cases.

“He would finish so many matters, as managing the courts was his forte. If he said he would take a particular matter, at a particular time on a particular day, he would without fail, take that matter, come what may.

So managing the docket of his court was his absolute forte and his legal acumen and knowledge were above par. He had superb knowledge of case laws and how to apply them. He was a very meticulous judge,” he recalled.

Sharing an interesting snippet, Dhakephalkar said that once, one of the stenographers of Justice Oka’s court had lost a briefcase carrying the dictation of about 30-40 judgments.

“It was just prior to summer vacations. Justice Oka re-dictated all judgments, about 30-40 judgments, without any complaints,” said the senior lawyer.

Advocate Hiten Venegaonkar had appeared before Justice Oka as an Additional Government Pleader for the State in the beef ban case.

“He actually comes from the appellate side and carried that entire appellate side ‘Bar’ with him. He knew what were the troubles, shortcomings that an appellate side lawyer faces. He treated lawyers with great respect. I don’t recollect a single incident otherwise. This was one of his best qualities,” said Venegaonkar.

The lawyer also remembered a time when every junior lawyer, as he also was at that point in time, was comfortable going to his court.

“We were very comfortable. Even if someone hadn’t prepared on a topic, we knew no injustice would be done to our clients. Whenever he came to court, he was fully prepared with briefs and matters that were listed,” he said.

According to Venegaonkar, the judge was particular about punctuality and spending time judiciously.

“Any irrelevant arguments were cut short and the lawyer was brought to the point…I have never seen Justice Oka [beginning to sit] any later than 11 am and never rising before 5pm. On the contrary, you would find him sitting till 5.30-6pm. I don’t remember a day in my entire career of 20 years and his entire period as a judge in Bombay High Court, that there was any notice saying ‘Justice Oka will not be available for judicial work’. Not even a single day. That was one of the greatest qualities,” said the counsel.

As one of the counsel in the beef ban case, Venegaonkar recollected that there were hundreds of lawyers representing the various parties in the case.

“But so nicely and gentlemanly, without hurting anybody’s sentiment, he conducted the PIL. It was fabulous. It is a benchmark that has to be set for judges,” he said.

Notable verdicts and observations from Justice Oka’s Court

Maharashtra Beef Ban, 2016

The verdict in the Maharashtra beef ban case remains one of the landmark judgments from the Bombay High Court in recent times. While upholding the validity of the beef ban law dealing with transport, export, sale and purchase and the punishment for violation of these provisions, Justice Oka’s bench struck down the provision prohibiting possession of beef from an animal slaughtered outside Maharashtra.

The Victorias Ban, 2015

The issue of plying of the iconic horse-pulled “Victorias” on Mumbai streets came before Justice’s Oka bench in 2015. The verdict in the case underscored that such carriages were not being used for the purposes of plying for hire for conveyance of persons and goods and, therefore, did not fall under the definition of “public conveyance” within the meaning of provisions of the Bombay Public Conveyance Act, 1920. In order to rehabilitate those affected by the ban on Victorias, the State government was directed to come up with such measures in six months. The State was also directed to also formulate a scheme for rehabilitation of the horses used for plying Victorias in Mumbai.

Construction Around Defence Lands, 2015

The judgment declared that illegalities compromising the security of defence installations couldn’t be tolerated, and that the authorities were under a legal obligation to remove illegal structures around Lohegaon aerodrome in Pune. A PIL by local residents had challenged the construction of multi-storeyed buildings in the vicinity of the Air Force station in Pune.

Godavari River Pollution, 2013

The issue of the rising pollution levels in the Godavari river was brought before the Court, prompting Justice Oka to suggest the building of artificial ponds for immersion during the Kumbh Mela. The Court asked the State to take decisions on pending proposals to implement various schemes for cleaning the river. The Bench directed the State, Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to come up with suggestions on curbing water pollution.

Noise Pollution Case, 2015

The order said that denial of permission to erect temporary booths or any other structure on public streets or footpaths for holding any religious function or festival will not amount to infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 (right to religion) of the Constitution of India. This, unless it was shown that the street or footpath in question has a particular significance for that religion so as to form an essential and integral part thereof. Accordingly, all municipal corporations in the State were directed to take immediate action of demolition of temporary booths or structures erected on public streets without obtaining the requisite permissions.

“Such action shall be taken before the religious festivals/functions are concluded,” the order stated.