I FEEL there is something painfully incongruous in
my having to take part in this function. 1 am reminded of what the late Sir
Subrahmania Aiyar said in the memorial meeting convened in 1914 after the death
of the late Mr. Justice Sundara Aiyar. He likened his taking part in the
function to a father performing the last rites of his own son. My feelings now
are quite as disturbed and painful.
As I reflect on the untimely death of Mr. Justice
Govindarajachari and on the tragic and premature end of a most promising
career, my mind goes back to a day in 1920, when, after a very distinguished
record both in Arts and Law, Mr. Govindarajachari approached me with a request
to take him as my apprentice with a letter of introduction from Mr. Arthur
Davis, the then Principal of the Law College.
Even as an apprentice-at-law, he threw himself
heart and soul into his work and used to accompany me to the mofussil courts in
important causes such as the Gollaprole case. In the first years of his
profession, I had the benefit of his assistance in several important causes
such as the Challapalli Kamatam suits at Masulipatam, and the Mirzapur
partition suit at Bezwada. The early years of Mr. Govindarajachari’s career at the
Bar coincided with the period in my professional career when it so happened
that brilliant young men used to frequent my chamber. In the Tanjore Palace
appeal, I was like a Chief of the staff having to mainly depend upon his
marshals and lieutenants. Mr. patanjali Sastriar was the junior generally in
charge of the case. My friend Mr. Balasubrahmania Aiyar made a special study of
the Sastraic and ceremonial portion. Mr. Govindarajachari explored the archives
of Mahratta history and made a special study of the Bakhars. I must,
however, own to a feeling of sadness that all our efforts should have been
directed to making out that the greatest of the Hindu Kings 2 was not a Kshatriya. Later, Mr. Govindarajachari
assisted me when I appeared before the Select Committee of the Madras
Legislative Council in 1923 or thereabout to represent the case of the
landholders in connection with the Madras Irrigation Bill, and, even at that
early stage of his professional career, he impressed me with his accurate,
keen, and intimate knowledge of the land tenures of this presidency. In a
certain type of cases, I noticed he was particularly strong where I was weak.
In the Gunderu suit, in the course of the trial in the court below, Aiyar, who
was assisting us with his expert knowledge? Quite recently, in the Gopalpur
case which was heard by Justices Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastriar, which turned
on whether certain accretions were re-formation in situ, or were lateral
or vertical formations, I was struck by his study of complicated river plans
and charts.
Within a few years after his joining the
profession, he reached the top ranks and became one of the accredited leaders
of the Bar. In the later years of his professional career, it was a source of
great pleasure to me to be opposed by him and, not infrequently, for him to get
the better of me.
Mr. Justice Govindarajachari had an alert
intellect; in his work as a lawyer, he showed a very quick grasp of the facts
in any complicated case and the legal questions involved in it. He easily
disentangled the material and relevant parts of a case from the immaterial and
the irrelevant. As a junior at the Bar, while himself thorough with every
detail in a case, he could easily adapt himself to the requirements of a senior
counsel and post him quickly with the essential parts of it. Of him it cannot
be said that he ever missed the wood for the trees. His form and style
attracted the attention of every Judge before whom he appeared. He had a
persuasive eloquence, a power of lucid exposition, and commanded a fluent,
chaste and forcible style. His address in court was marked by a quick and
unflurried manner and, even when provoked in argument, he kept his temper under
admirable control.
He was well-read both in Indian and English
case-law, and had a thorough grasp of legal principles. Unlike even some able
Advocates, he never left the court or the opposite side in any haze or doubt as
regards the main points of his arguments.
In the latter years of his professional career, he
probably over-strained himself, which must have told seriously on his health.
He was not a dry lawyer, wedded solely to his
profession. His was a well-ordered, well-stored, and well-balanced mind. He
brought to bear a judicial approach to every problem with which he was faced.
He could never think nor be persuaded to think in narrow, parochial, or
provincial terms. He was fired by a lofty patriotism. He was well-read in
literature, politics, and history. He took great interest in fine arts and in
high-class literary journalism. He was a lover of good books, pictures and
plays, and generally the good things of life. He was connected with several
public institutions of the City and in every way he lived a full life. He was a
fine and eloquent speaker on public platforms.
During the brief period he was a Judge he took ill
twice, the last illness proving fatal. Even during the short period of his
office as a Judge, his work gave promise of a great career which would have
entitled him to take his place along with some of the brightest names that have
adorned our legal history. He had taken part in notable causes, and his
judgments were marked by a sense of form, learning, lucidity, and a fine
diction. It is often stated–and not without truth–that there is a temptation
for an able member of the Bar elevated to the Bench, to exhibit an inability to
cast off the role of an Advocate on points on which he feels strongly. In my
experience I have known of even eminent Judges–unconsciously it may
be–mistaking their function as Judges and, instead of allowing the Counsel to
persuade the Judge to a particular point of view, reversing the process and
arguing with the Counsel. But, from all reports and from my experience in the
few cases that I appeared before him, Mr. Govindarajachari brought to bear a
remarkable patience and a desire to have every aspect of a question thrashed
out. He exhibited uniform courtesy and friendliness to every section of the
Bar.
No words can adequately convey our sense of grief and irreparable loss at Mr. Justice Govindarajachari being cut off in the prime of life. In his passing away the Madras High Court has lost the services of a brilliant and distinguished Judge; this Province a most enlightened and public-spirited citizen, and, if I may be permitted to say so, I have lost a valued and dear friend.
1 Full text of the
speech delivered at the Ranade Hall, Mylapore, Madras, on October 14.
2 Shivaji, ancestor of
the Tanjore Kings.