In Conversation with Advocate NGR Prasad

In the fourth interview with lawyers from the Madras Bar, Bar & Bench speaks to NGR Prasad, a lawyer who had been practicing for more than five decades. In this interview, NGR talks about his refusal to become a Senior Advocate, working in a Leftist office, and why the world needs more “barefoot” lawyers..B&B: A little bit about your initial years?.NGR Prasad: I chose to pursue law because I wanted to pursue an independent career. I enrolled in nineteen hundred and sixty one. I was motivated and inspired by people like V.G. Rao and A. Ramachandran who were very strong people. V.G. Rao and A. Ramachandran were Barristers and were drawn from very affluent sections of society. But they were drawn towards larger causes – they wanted to emancipate the poor, they wanted to work for the working class, work for a [political] party that would serve the working class. V.G. Rao was President of Reserve Bank [trade] unions. He did a lot for the working class..B&B: What was the relationship between a junior lawyer and a senior back then?.NGR: I worked in this very office under V.G. Rao and A Ramachandran who were activist lawyers. This is a firm, which has been doing labour and constitutional work since the very start. AK Gopalan’s case and other landmark cases were from this very office. VG Rao, in more ways than one, was a pioneer.. The initial years were wonderful. You see V.G. Rao and A Ramachandran were professional lawyers. They had a different social and political attitude. This really is a Leftist office. A number of leaders from the Left would come to this office; we filed habeas corpus petitions on their behalf. Many a leading case in Constitutional law started from this very office. AK Gopalan’s case, which was the first case on preventive detention, was filed by VG Rao and argued by MK Nambiar..VG Rao was a son of a High Court judge. He went to England, studied law and then came back to India. He had Leftist persuasions and he started pursuing the interests of the working class..B&B: Would you describe yourself as a Left-leaning lawyer as well?.NGR: Well, I was drawn to VG Rao and A Ramachandran and their very compassionate approach to the downtrodden. Their pursuits were for excellence and not for wealth. They had these enduring values – that is what really appealed to me. They were not commercial lawyers; they were lawyers with a great sense of purpose..B&B: And didn’t they find it difficult to earn money?.NGR: Well whatever it is, we were able to make some money. We wouldn’t have made crores of rupees but enough to sustain ourselves. There were so many people working for the Party, so many senior lawyers devoted to the greater cause – I found that all very inspiring..B&B: And you still believe in the Leftist cause?.NGR: Today, if there is an element of democracy in this country, I would say that it is because of the Left. It is a party with a large sense of ethics. They are really fighting people’s issues. They may not be voted to power but they certainly provide a strong sense of direction to this country. Otherwise this country would have gone anarchic..B&B: Do you think the current laws are too pro-labour?.NGR: The labour laws may be pro-labour but I would not say that Courts are pro-labour..B&B: But was this always the case? Say in the 1970’s?.NGR: Well then they necessarily had to be pro-Labour because Justice Krishna Iyer was there and they wanted to lend credibility to the Supreme Court. But you must see six years later, when there were certain judges who wanted to undo what Justices Krishna Iyer, Desai, Chinnappa Reddy had done. [Justice Iyer and others] were really Constitutional judges whose persuasion was towards Constitutional values..B&B: And what do you think is the current attitude of the Supreme Court? .NGR: What happens [nowadays] is that the values of judges differ. They are drawn from a society, from a class which belongs to the proprietary class. Therefore except for a few, many are towards the owning class..Take the example of TMA Pai’s case. There couldn’t be a more pro-owning class judgment than that. It has legitimized the privatization of education and has led to the black marketisation of education. It has made the right to establish an education institution a Fundamental Right; this is a retrograde step! The judgment [in TMA Pai] has really emboldened people to indulge in the black marketing of education; seats are being sold..My greater point is that State’s activities are receding. Today, the State should enlarge its activities in the field of education, and also in matters of health. It is fundamental duty of the State to take up the responsibility of running hospitals, schools, and colleges..B&B: What do you think is the root of this problem? Do you think that there should be a re-thinking in the way judges are appointed?. NGR: You must draw pro-people Judges. For example, Judges like Krishna Iyer were essentially pro-people. But he wrote that when he was to be appointed, Justice Hegde objected and said, “Don’t make him a judge, he is a Communist.” Therefore should only anti-Communists be made judges? We have seen the wrong side of the law..B&B: What do you think about the growing corporatization of the legal profession?.NGR: There certainly is a lot of corporatization of the legal profession..B&B: And what is wrong with that?.NGR: Corporatization of the legal profession means people lose a certain amount of sensitivity. Today, lawyers think high earning is synonymous with high learning which is not so. You have to find your own equation. If you are going to struggle and contribute to a greater cause, you will make money of course. As a corporate lawyer, you might make millions of rupees but that is not the end of life..There are lawyers who are dedicated to the environment, to trade union movements, to women’s emancipation. And these lawyers are very good, very competent people..You should not only appear for those who can afford your fees – that is not the way to think at all. You must be able to appear for a man who has a worthy cause as well. Fees should not be a determining factor..B&B: Do you still see lawyers like these?.NGR: Well, people are worrying. The other day, [Supreme Court Senior Advocate] Rajeev Dhawan was telling me that we don’t have a working class lawyer in the Supreme Court. Earlier, there used to be the likes of ASR Chari etc. Here in Madras, you have some working class lawyers..The entire legal profession is meant to serve the people; not aggrandize yourself. Wealth is not excellence; comfort is not happiness! I think that idealism in education has been destroyed because of privatization of education..B&B: Do you ever find yourself representing the Management? .NGR: Well, one or two [organizations] in the public sector but 98% of my work is for the working class..B&B: Were you ever asked to become a Senior Advocate?.NGR: I refused! A High Court judge once asked me, “You are a lawyer who is regularly appearing for the workers. Why don’t you become a Senior Advocate?” I said, “If you are a lawyer for the working class, you should be with the working class.” I don’t believe in this [system of being designated a] Senior Advocate and not being one among other lawyers. Of course many lawyers who were Left-leaning took up the post but I did not. My opinion is that the senior gown simply gives you a sense of distinction; it is a commercial gown..B&B: Why do you say that?.NGR: I have lawyers telling me that today in the Supreme Court, you will get a better hearing if you are wearing a senior gown. What is this? There are times when a junior could be able to argue the case better! Why should you want to be a Senior? There should be a gown for judges and there should be a gown for lawyers. We should have a classless society..B&B: And would you refuse a post as a judge as well?.NGR: Aiyo, I had been dissuading my juniors such as Justice Chandru [of the Madras High Court] from becoming judges..B&B: Why?.NGR: I told them that we need lawyers for the working class..B&B: But don’t you need judges for the working class as well?.NGR: Well, they were doing a lot for the people. Suppose you become a judge, who is going to defend these people? All these cases come to me but I can’t handle the load..I have always believed that a working class man can do a lot more for the people rather than become a judge. But then, I suppose people are attracted to the position. .B&B: Did you ever want to be a judge?.NGR: Not at all. I wanted to be with the people, to talk to them..B&B: Do you think people are losing faith in the judiciary?.NGR: Today, people have no faith in the government, they have no faith in the bureaucracy either. As a result, they have nowhere else to go except to the courts. The other day, I told Justice Gokhale, that people have a better impression of courts because the other [State] institutions have failed. Today we have an unelected leadership in this country. The entire power has passed into courts, which is not good. Elected democracy has failed. Leaders who are elected, make money and then spend it all. They are the most corrupt fellows!.B&B: What is your opinion of the February 19 incident?.NGR: It was sad; the police beating up lawyers. The whole thing appears to be pre planned. How do you explain the presence of an entire posse of policemen?.B&B: Do you think, at some level, lawyers are also to blame for this? Not the incident itself, but the events leading up to the incident?. NGR: Well, the government should have resolved these issues. Suppose there is a strike, the government should make an effort to resolve it. We have been on strike, judges have asked us, “When are you going to resume work?” and we say, “Strike is also work. We want a better society, not merely a better practice.”.B&B: So you have no objection to lawyers going on strike?.NGR: I, for one, have no objection. Everybody has a fundamental right to strike. It is a last resort. The strike is the last weapon in the hands of the working people. There is nothing wrong with going on strike. The government should resolve the issue..B&B: But the Supreme Court has said that such strikes are not – .NGR: The Supreme Court may say that it is against strikes but is it against lock outs, I want to know? Is the Supreme Court against closures? It is a class institution according to me. Today it is a fact that the cultural orientation of judges is far different from the aspirations of the working people. Today, if you had a Justice Krishna Iyer, the worker would be confident. Back then, they wanted to induct Krishna Iyer to improve the credibility of the Courts; it is not that the credibility of Krishna Iyer went up, rather the credibility of the Supreme Court had gone down..B&B: What do you think of the entry of foreign law firms?.NGR: I object. This country is meant for Indian law firms. We got our freedom, we certainly want Indian lawyers to do their cases..B&B: But what is wrong with having foreign law firms?.NGR: Why should they come? We have to employ Indian lawyers. We cannot let this happen..B&B: As a litigating lawyer, surely there is no threat?.NGR: No. The foreign lawyers are definitely at an advantage in terms of their economic power, in terms of the exchange value of the rupee. What about Indian lawyers here? We have studied in Indian law schools. Why should foreign lawyers enter this country? We have the Indian legal system; we will deliver within it..Do you think that an Indian lawyer has the same chance as a British lawyer in English courts? Certainly not! It is only a poor Asian who will engage an Asian lawyer. Even a rich Indian industrialist will engage a British lawyer. It is still the White Man who prevails..B&B: What attracts you towards the profession?.NGR: The most interesting thing is appearing for the ordinary people for their ordinary problems. For example, a person being denied a seat in a college through unjust means; exorbitant fees being charged..B&B: Any advice you would give for those who are considering studying law?.NGR: I would say that there should be more barefoot lawyers. They should be more aware of people’s problems. [The profession] can be a source of income but it should be a source of life not livelihood. There are lawyers who are doing a lot of good work..The initial years are difficult I admit. How many prosperous Senior Advocates believe in supporting their juniors? They believe in having more cars, more houses. Today, you judge a lawyer’s elevation to the High Court on the basis of income. It is not the income that matters but the outcome; the kind of reputation he enjoys and the kind of cases he has handled. And because you have not chosen judges with good backgrounds, you have all these impeachment proceedings. So a strong change is required..B&B: Lastly, anything you would like to say to young lawyers? .NGR: I would say that law is not a means of livelihood but a mission in life. You should pursue it with a sense of purpose. .This interview was conducted in February, 2013 in Chennai. The previous three interviews of lawyers from the Madras High Court were those of Senior Advocate R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Advocate S Ramasubramanim, and Senior Advocate PS Raman.