He is one of the most charismatic lawyer of our times. Went to jail during the freedom struggle and again during the Emergency period. He is known to work on his briefs both with the head and the heart. At the age of 37, P. N. Lekhi completed his law from Jalandhar and then started practice. Although starting late, he did not find it difficult to create a name for himself, by sheer hard work and dedication to the profession. It is a treat to watch him argue a case. In an exclusive interview, he shares his moments with our correspondent Renu Sharma.
Q. You had been the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association for several terms. In what all activities was the Bar actively involved during your tenure?
I was first elected as President the Bar Association of the High Court of Delhi in 1976. I was in detention at that time. By the time I was released the term of office as president was nearing its end. I was re-elected in 1977. Since the Janata Government was in power during that term I could prevail upon the Central Government to hasten the completion of the lawyer’s chamber building, which was embroiled in an arbitration dispute between the contractor and the Central Public Works Department. I got a new contractor appointed and the work was completed before the Janata Government fell. I was elected again three times. I got the Bar canteen air-conditioned and made the High Court building a no-smoking zone, much before the Government of Delhi banned smoking in public places. I also got the electronic display board installed so that lawyers and litigants could know in which court what matter was under consideration.
Q. Out of so many options to choose, why did you opt for law as your profession?
I was unknowingly fated to become a lawyer. I was named after a lawyer who then practiced in Dharamsala, now in Himachal Pradesh. That lawyer was married in the year of my birth, to the daughter of my father’s friend. My father was fascinated with that name. He decided, if he had a son, he would name the child Pran Nath. I am that child. After my M.Sc. (Hons.) in chemistry, which I did in the year of India’s partition, I was on the look out for a job. I took the Central Services Competitive Examination and missed the chance to be inducted into IAS. The opportunity presented itself again in 1956, when I was serving as an officer in the then Military Lands and Cantonments services. I stood fifth in the Special Competitive Examination held to fill up 125 IAS posts. But the intelligence branch of the Central Government vetoed my chance to be in the IAS. That led me to file a writ petition in 1958. The writ petition was dismissed. When I saw the law was dead set against me, I requested my counsel, Mr. H. L. Anand (later Justice of High Court of Delhi), if I could be permitted to say a few words to the Bench (coram: Chief Justice Falshaw with Justice Mehar Singh of the Punjab High Court). The Bench agreed to hear me. I said the prospectus read ‘the results shall be declared in the order of merit’ but the result sheet was ‘in the order of preference’. The last British judge of the Punjab High Court reacted by asking, what is the difference between merit and preference? I immediately responded ‘merit is what I have irrespective of what you think me to be’ and preference is ‘what you think of me irrespective of what I am’. “Dismissed,” shouted the gruff British voice. As I was leaving the court along with M. Anand, he asked me to see Mr. N.C. Chaterjee, senior lawyer, and a renowned public figure in those days. I replied I had only five hundred rupees to spend and I had exhausted them so I was in no position to engage Mr. Chaterjee for the Supreme Court. Mr. Anand replied he had committed to Mr. Chaterjee that I would see him and since Mr. Chaterjee was senior in the profession, it would hurt Mr. Anand if the word he had given to his senior was not honoured. He said that was the ethics of the legal profession to honour what had been said to the senior. I was free to tell Mr. Chaterjee what I had told Mr. Anand. When I told Mr. Chaterjee I was no game for the Supreme Court, he shouted at me saying, who wanted me to go to the Supreme Court? He said I was wasting myself in Government service and should leave it at once and join law. He said he had been present in Court when I spoke about merit and preference. I replied I had not done law at all. “Then go and do law” was the reply. I got myself transferred to Jullundur Cantonment and joined the evening classes at the University Law College. I was very happy to become a lawyer, although I was 37 years old when I started the law practice.
Q. Did you have a godfather, who guided and helped you in reaching to this level in this profession?
When I landed in Delhi to practice law, I had nobody who could guide me. I was like a twig tossed umpteen times by the vagrant waves of the ocean. I was kicked out from one senior’s office to another, but one great lawyer helped me by allowing me the freedom of his library. He was Mr. Tilak Raj Bhasin. His son, Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate, is a great friend of mine.
Q. You have so many landmark decisions to your credit and have also done so much for the general society. Are you satisfied with whatever you have done for this profession or do you feel that there is still a lot more you can do?
A lawyer is a student till the end of his life, and no good student should be satisfied with what he is today, for tomorrow always holds promise of the challenge of the unknown. Law is an ever-expanding philosophy of life and of society. Law is the only learned profession that comes into play, wittingly or unwittingly, in our daily life. Law, like life, is a growing process. Moribund law is decadent law, which can only create a decadent society. Every tomorrow is an invitation for rejuvenation.
Q. You have travelled around the globe and have attended many legal seminars relating to legal education. Does legal education in foreign colleges help in any way as far as the Indian legal system is concerned?
Legal education is best learnt in one’s own country. The time has come for the world to become contracted in one whole. Till the time comes when we have a common world code, foreign education in law will not be much help. The UNCITRAL might be the promise of the shape of things to come in the future, but the common man in the street is concerned not with the laws of commerce, but the laws promising him or her a safe sojourn throughout life. What we generally know as the criminal law.
Q. Do you feel the need for introduction/adoption of systems, followed by Courts abroad, in India?
There is a fad for something foreign but the school of thought espousing imitations of foreign courts is common only in India. No other foreign country worth the name is fascinated with such idea.
Q. What suggestions do you have for people who join law as a profession?
Law, as is generally said, is not inspiration but perspiration. It needs single minded devotion. Law is a hard taskmaster. It has money-earning potential only in big cities, not elsewhere. The average income of a lawyer in India is not more than that of a lower division clerk. Law may not make one a millionaire but it is a profession which can make the millionaire bow down to the lawyer. I do not subscribe to the saying that a lawyer must first get on, then get honour, and then get honest. A good lawyer starts with honesty if he is to get on and get honour. That is in my view what a lawyer should be.