Interview With The Author Of The Book 'MN Rao : The Renaissance Man Of Law'
Justice M. N. Rao turned 90 this April. Across his distinguished career, Justice Rao has been in various roles- a law secretary, a district judge, a High Court judge, Chief Justice of the HP High Court, a Senior Advocate before the Supreme Court, Chairperson of the Backward Class Commission, a philanthropist, and a public intellectual.
To mark his 90th birthday and celebrate the life and work of Justice Rao, Professor Amita Dhanda, Professor Emerita at NALSAR, who considers Justice Rao as her mentor as well as well-wisher, has written a biographical monograph titled- 'M.N. Rao: The Renaissance Man of Law' published by Eastern Book Company (EBC).
In this conversation with Udit Singh, Prof. Dhanda talks about the thinking behind writing a biographical monograph, Justice Rao's various legal roles, and how these roles feed into each other? The conversation further dwells into concepts of integrity, law as an instrument of social change, accountability, social responsibility, and the relationship between law and justice, through Justice Rao's career.
US: You state in the Preface to the book that you were planning to do a curated volume of Justice Rao's writings but abandoned that idea when you encountered Justice Rao's memoirs which also included excerpts from some of his landmark judgments. What propelled you to write this biographical monograph?
AD: I was planning to do the curated volume as a tribute. And I wanted to pay that tribute because I felt that Justice Rao had over a lifetime ceaselessly contributed to public life without the razmataz that accompanies other public intellectuals. At no point was his doing the right thing about earning plaudits for himself. The curated volume of his writings like the memoir would have primarily been Justice Rao speaking about his own life. At best a self-appraisal. There is a difference between how we see ourselves and how others view us. It is also difficult to see the picture when you are in the frame. I was convinced that Justice Rao's work needed to be externally viewed in order to make a more holistic evaluation. If I take an Aristotelian view I would say that Justice Rao has lived a life worthy of emulation and for people to follow it they must know what he has done: hence the biography.
US: Why did you title the book 'The Renaissance Man of Law'?
AD: A man of many parts is how the Renaissance man is commonly described. The book shows how Rao performed a range of legal roles from judge, lawyer, legal bureaucrat and legal academic. Each of these roles were performed with competence and commitment. The title captured both the range and the depth of Rao's manifold contribution to Indian law.
US: As Law Secretary of undivided Andhra Pradesh in the early 1980s, Justice Rao worked with five Chief Ministers across very different political orientations. What does Justice Rao's tenure as Law Secretary reveal about the relationship between law, bureaucracy, and political power?
AD: Rao's stint as law secretary shows that a respectful relationship between the political and the permanent executive requires boundaries to be observed by both. The law secretary is obligated to provide constitutionally informed legal counsel, without trying to curry favour with the politician in power. For such counsel to contribute to lawful governance, the chief minister needs to be receptive to advice. And if the advice is rejected then the politicians need to assume responsibility for their own choices and not use the bureaucrats as scapegoats.
At the same time the bureaucrat needs to concede that the courage to make the leap from what the law is to what it ought to be primarily comes from the politician. The Andhra Pradesh Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act giving women coparcenary rights came despite the cautionary advice of the Law Secretary because the Chief Minister wanted to come true on his electoral promise. That the Law Secretary then drafted that law in record time without demur is where the permanent executive let progress happen.
US: You have discussed some cases (Sakinala Harinath, Karamchedu massacre) that were argued or decided by Justice Rao. Taking these as background, what kinds of legal and social questions drove Justice Rao across his work as a judge and advocate?
AD: I would not club his work as a judge and as a lawyer. As a judge he primarily had to decide according to the work allocated to him. I have in the book shown the patterns I found in Rao's decision-making. He believed in observing boundaries between the various organs of the State thus neither taking over the job of the executive or legislature nor cede adjudicative ground. It is due to this outlook that the Sakinala Harinath case the AP High Court bench headed by him found Article 323A unconstitutional because it wrested the High Court's power of judicial review. A judge, I have pointed out needs to examine an issue from all angles, weigh consequences and then arrive at a decision. Be it guarding personal liberty, providing equality of opportunity or upholding the rule of law I found this exercise of judgement in all decisions pronounced by Justice M N Rao. This exercise of judgement required a clear mind, an open heart and a strong spine. Each of these contributed to his performance as a judge.
As a lawyer on the other hand, I would distinguish between his routine advocacy and his cause lawyering. The Karamchedu Massacre Case is an example of the latter kind of case where his toughest job was just to get the Supreme Court to admit the appeal from a High Court decision which reversed the Session Court and acquitted all those who were convicted of the horrendous massacre. Interestingly, though he succeeded in obtaining relief from the Supreme Court, the apex court did not deem it proper to acknowledge his efforts in its judgment. The caste dimension was totally erased and the Apex Court proceeded to pronounce judgment like they were deciding any standard criminal appeal.
US: You have mentioned a Trial Court case where Justice Rao acquitted a mother who allegedly killed her husband after he raped their daughter, with the judge invoking a 'higher law than man-made positive law'. What does this judgment reveal about Justice Rao's understanding of justice beyond strict legal formalism?
AD: I think when evaluating the work of District Judges, we should not frame the matter as higher law versus positivist law. District Court judges are applying the law to a set of facts. The significance of those facts should not be downplayed. We commonly encounter expositions on the importance of the trial court judges and how they have the opportunity to watch the demeanour of the accused, complainants and witnesses and consequently is deciding not just on the basis of law but also the facts. The segment on Rao's work as District Judge including the case you are mentioning, shows many a case where the judge is deciding not just on the basis of what the lawyers are arguing but also on the strength of what he is observing. In one case he acquitted a helpless farm hand who was charged of murdering his master. The iron clad case of the prosecution being the cause of suspicion. In the father raping his daughter case, Rao invoked higher law as his inarticulate premise as a judge to not pursue the matter of the culpability of the wife. Instead, he made an alternative reading of the facts and concluded that the rapist father had in shame committed suicide. If there was a similar case today, a judge could employ feminist jurisprudence to acquit the mother who set the rapist father on fire.
US: One of the striking aspects of the book is that it does not end with the courtroom or the State, but with philanthropy, mentorship, and institution-building. Why was it important for you to include these dimensions within a legal monograph?
AD: The book shows Rao's concern for the disadvantaged as bureaucrat, judge, and lawyer. Rao has seen this as the duty of privilege. When he decided to set up a trust and put his money where his mouth is; it became imperative for me to cover this choice. He was no longer content with providing legal advice; he was also giving away what he had earned as a practising advocate. This is not a corporate diversion; it is an individual commitment. I am not sure whether that is the best way for individuals to practice philanthropy? The choice needs to be recorded even if to understand how easy or difficult it is to practice individual philanthropy. Also covering all dimensions of his persona was in accord with the title of the book.
US: Justice Rao's most sustained public intellectual work concerns caste discrimination and Ambedkarism. He argues that economic progress alone is insufficient to address caste, and that nothing short of its annihilation will do. Could you elaborate on this?
AD: Rao's public lectures undertake an evidence-based documentation of the pervasive prejudice experienced on grounds of caste. This prejudice he shows subsists irrespective of economic advancement. In his lectures on Backward Classes and Affirmative Action he closely examines the affirmative action judgments of the apex court and shows how the Court consistently views affirmative action as opposed to merit. This close examination then gets him to conclude “when such a belief is all permeating, a person belonging to a backward class although possessing superior merit is bound to entertain the feeling that vis a vis persons belonging to unreserved categories, his merit is relatively less.” His scholastic contributions repeatedly show that the inherent worth of a human is continually diminished by the prejudicial label of caste. This prejudice could not be destroyed by economic empowerment but only by the annihilation of caste.
US: After working through Justice Rao's many roles, what do you think his life ultimately tells us about the possibilities and limitations of law as an instrument of social change in India?
AD: Rao advanced the cause of social justice in every role he played. His life and work show that there are possibilities in the law which competent and honest individuals can realise. He may not be a lawperson with lineage but he unflinchingly fought for the constitutional order that he believed in. Whether as lawyer or as judge or as legal bureaucrat, he nurtured the rule of law as it is that rule which provides protection against the prejudice of hierarchy and privilege. His life shows that that with courage, competence and commitment it is possible to both fight against injustice and strive for a just social order.
Professor Amita Dhanda is the Professor Emerita at NALSAR University of Law Hyderabad. She heads the Centre for Disability Studies and Centre for Legal Philosophy and Justice Education at NALSAR.
Udit Singh is a Doctoral Fellow at NALSAR.
Views are personal.