The #BombaySeniors: In Conversation with Senior Advocate Iqbal Chagla (Part 1)

Iqbal Chagla is one of India’s leading lawyers. The son of MC Chagla, one of the legends of the Bombay Bar, Iqbal did not always want to join the legal profession. His initial interest lay elsewhere.

“I did join Grey’s Inn but I think my interest was more in literature. I intended to go to the Sorbonne University in Paris and then I lost my mother. So even before I was called to the Bar, I had to rush back to India.”

The one thing that he was certain about was that he was unlikely to be suited to work at a company or a law firm.

 “Saying ‘Sir’ to somebody was alien to me. So as a result, practicing law was the only thing. I wanted to have complete independence.”

But before he would start practicing and join the famous Chamber of Kharshedji Hormasji Bhabha, there was a hurdle to cross.

“I found that I was not qualified to practice. The Advocates Act had just been enacted in which they disqualified barristers immediately, but recognized degrees from universities like Oxford, Cambridge, London, Leeds and some totally unknown universities in America.

I found it a little astounding that a professional examination which I had done i.e. becoming a barrister was not recognized. Now I made the mistake of believing myself to be very proper and honest and I thought that I had not done a law degree because I had done History in part 1 and Law in part 2.

But, in fact, it was a law degree and all I had to say was that I had done law at Cambridge and haven’t been able to practice. But I didn’t and so I kept going to the Bar Council trying to find out and they said, ‘Things are uncertain, we don’t know’. It took a whole year and ultimately they set an examination.

So I became the first barrister to be re-examined on Indian soil. My viva voce was also done. At that time it felt like the world had come to an end. Although in retrospect, it made no damn difference. Except that for that one year I could not earn anything. So that was the beginning.”

Did his father play a big role in him joining the profession?

“Not at all, he left it entirely to me. He was one of the most broadminded, liberal individuals that I have ever known.

In fact, father and son were drawn together by a common love for literature.

“We had a tremendous chemistry largely because of our love for literature. A huge library was there at the Chief Justice’s house to which I had full access to. So he was totally and completely liberal. Even when it came to smoking, he said to me, ‘Don’t smoke until you leave school.’ The day I finished school, he presented to me a cigarette case and a lighter. We used to smoke together. He loved cinema. We used to go together and come out in the interval to have a smoke.”

Now it was time for him to join a Chamber and his father asked him to meet Jamshedji Kanga. However, Kanga told Chagla, “I am now a retired man. I don’t practice anymore” and asked him to join Bhabha’s Chamber instead. Looking back, Chagla says,

“I think that is the greatest thing that ever happened to me. Bhabha’s chambers were amazing. I met Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee, Jangoo Khambata and number of others.

It was a great learning experience. He was a hard task master. We were in chambers until he was in chambers. He would throw a brief at us and ask about the facts, the law. In the conferences, he would ask a junior to tell him about the matter, which was a very good way to start.

In Bhabha’s chambers, we all had one chair in an alcove each, where we used to sit and hold conferences also. Nariman was the only one who had a table. He was Bhabha’s first junior. Even Sorabjee had his little alcove. We all sat in a row. Then I graduated to the main chambers after Sam Bharucha became a judge. That table is still with me. My son (Justice Riyaz Chagla) also used it.”

Chagla was in that chamber till 1985.

Once again, his father’s looming shadow returns. The questions that begs to be asked is whether he felt the pressure of being MC Chagla’s son?

“I think those shoes were too large to fill so there wasn’t any question of intending or expecting anything like that. I unabashedly say that he was my greatest hero. But he took a lot of interest in my work, whatever I was doing.

When he resumed his practice in the Supreme Court, they would ask him whom would he want as a junior. He said he would take anybody.

Then they asked him, ‘Don’t you have a son practicing in Mumbai? Wouldn’t you want him?’ He would say, ‘Would you bring him only because he is my son?’ I appeared with him only three times, all in matters where we decided to brief him.”

Although he was the son of MC Chagla, he did face difficulties in the initial years.

“Legacy didn’t play any part at all. Nobody would brief you because you are MC Chagla’s son. Either you are able to deliver the goods or you are not. And I used to think which unsuspecting solicitor would ever place a brief in my hand and ask me to argue.”

For him, it began with the smallest of matters.

“If a solicitor was impressed in a conference and believed that you knew something of the matter or you are industrious, they would come and brief you with somebody else. Occasionally for some chamber summons or some small application, a solicitor would be brave enough to say that you won’t make a mess of everything.”

Chagla also feels that lawyer’s fees in those days were “ridiculous” as compared to what they are today.

“An entire pleading or plaint or written statement or the entire foundation of the case would be marked 3 plus 2, meaning 3 guineas plus 2 guineas for conferences. So 5 guineas multiplied by 15, which comes to 75 rupees. And I always thought that this is the most underpaid thing because of the amount of work that went into it. I always had this terrible fear that some plaint of mine would be dismissed for disclosing no cause of action. That was a nightmare. For that, I used to feel so terribly underpaid.”

As Chagla speaks about lawyer’s fees, the conversation drifts towards the practices of the Bombay Bar, wherein juniors are not paid by seniors. It is a system that Chagla too believes in.

 “What happens is I think that when they (juniors) get briefed with you, then that itself becomes their sort of emolument or remuneration. If you pay them, it ceases to be a profession. Something that I did very often was that I either told the solicitor to brief him (junior) or if he was to look up authorities or do some research as a junior, then some remuneration for that matter should be given. But if you do it on a paid basis, then the person himself may also not like it.”

So is that tradition still carried on?

“It is. But at the same time I think more and more people are giving some sort of honorarium or payment. But I have always believed that it is a free thing. Whoever is in my chambers does not have to do what I tell him to do. He can appear against me as well. In fact, my son appeared against me in matters. I had appeared against Bhabha in matters although I was at his chambers. But that has been a tradition.”

Chagla was designated Senior in 1979 and it was his father who was keener to see his son on the senior list.

“I used to tell my father that I would have no practise at all, because going into the senior list has a lot of conditions and if you apply them strictly then you cannot appear without a junior, you cannot do any pleadings, you cannot appear in small matters like chambers summons etc. in those days. Now, of course, it is open house. He always said, ‘I am very keen and I hope to see you go into the senior list.’ And fortunately he did. He died in 1981.”

Chagla was asked to join the Bench not once, not twice but thrice. Twice by the Bombay High Court, and once by the Supreme Court.

“I was asked twice. The first time was when all those transfers were taking place in the Bombay High Court. Then, post-emergency, when the Janata Party came to power. At that time, I said that I don’t trust the Janata Party any more than I trusted the Congress. I said no. The more difficult thing was when I was asked by the Supreme Court.”

He would have made Chief Justice of India if he had agreed to join the Bench. But why did he say no?

“There were many reasons. I was told that I would become the Chief Justice of India in the course of time. It was said in such a way to make sure that I could not say no. But I would have been the Chief Justice for only 13 months, which I felt was not enough. There were other personal reasons. But they could have been overridden if the period would have been longer as the Chief Justice. “

And Chagla strongly believes that the tenure of the Chief Justice must be a longer one. And he gives reasons for that.

“Apart from administrative reasons, it is important for the judicial appointments also. So that you shape the Supreme Court in such a way and you get the best talent. Today, look at the Supreme Court and what it has become and the sort of matters that reach the Supreme Court. It is most unfortunate. I feel really sorry for the judges of the Supreme Court.” 

To be continued….