The #BombaySeniors: In Conversation with Shreehari Aney (Part 1)

“I remember what a pleasant young man I was before I got into the legal profession”, reminisces Shreehari Aney, “and I know how sarcastic, bitter and pessimistic I have become.”.It is difficult to figure out if this is another example of his self-deprecatory style. There is a smile on his face, but no mirth in his eyes..One of the youngest to be designated a senior advocate (he was barely forty-years old), Shreehari Aney began his legal career in Nagpur. After close to two decades at Nagpur, Aney moved to Bombay, becoming one of the most sought-after lawyers in Maharashtra. At one point of time, Aney had established offices in Nagpur, Aurangabad, Bombay and Delhi. It is not his legal career alone that is of note. Aney is the grandson of Bapuji Aney, one of the most prominent leaders of the Vidarbha movement..The two share a similar political inclination, Shreehari Aney has often spoken out for a separate Vidarbha state. And it was these political leanings that eventually led to Aney’s resignation from the post of Advocate General of Maharashtra..On his part, Aney says that the Opposition’s stance had little to do with his political statements, rather the reason is far removed from demands of statehood..(Excerpts below).Anuj Agrawal: Did you foresee the resignation? .Shreehari Aney: Yes, I did in the sense it was a foregone conclusion that it would happen sooner or later. My political views were always known, however the impact that they would have was not known..Two weeks of the winter session was a washout only on how could the Advocate General speak in favour of separate statehood. This session was the same, although I had made the statement about Marathwada a month and a half back. At that time as well, the Shiv Sena had protested. And then they again took it up just on the face of the Budget session..My personal feeling was that there has been this ongoing tendency to disrupt the House..Anuj Agrawal: You must have known though, that it would happen..Shreehari Aney: Of course, the Chief Minister and I discussed this quite at length before my appointment. In fact, the reason we were going back and forth on this for four months was essentially this whole business about the possible case of conflict..Eventually it was resolved in a very simple manner. What the CM wanted to know was in how many cases would I really run into a situation of conflict. You know it is only when inter-regional issues are involved and those issues that touch the economic or developmental aspects – that is when [conflict] could arise. Such cases are very few to be honest; perhaps 2-3 cases a year in all the Benches put together..So [the CM] said that if it is as little as that wouldn’t I find it easier to recuse and not argue. And to that we agreed. To be candid, as far as that went, it worked out pretty well. In the sense, there were times when I was taking very fierce stand against government but not necessarily relating to regional disparities..For instance, when I spoke up and said that the whole sedition business has to go. It makes no sense. Speaking against a politician does not amount to sedition. And the government was good enough to withdraw that circular..Then when I spoke about the right of muslim women to enter the Haji Ali dargah. How the right to equality would be far greater than the right to religion..Anuj Agrawal: Do you regret making the comments you made?.Shreehari Aney: No no. Listen you can recuse yourself from getting into a case. But you can’t recuse yourself when the court says they want to hear the view of the State. When the court says they want to hear the Advocate General what they are really saying is they want to hear the State. You don’t have a choice there..I can’t regret what I said because everything I said in court was factually correct. I could have beaten around the bush, I could have avoided answering, I could have procrastinated. But I am not built like that. I come out very clearly on what I believe and what I don’t believe..On that, I know I made many people uncomfortable. Particularly people in power. I have a feeling that a large amount of the hoopla that we saw that is attributable to those things rather than some statement about Marathwada. I suspect it was more the other things that the Advocate General was saying that could have troubled them..Anuj Agrawal: For instance?.Shreehari Aney: Before the Aurangabad Bench, the State refused to file an affidavit to explain the discrepancies in the projects allotted to Marathwada and Vidharbha and why they were not being completed..The State, including the previous governments, had just sat tight on this and not filed the affidavit for months. Finally I put my foot down and told the Secretary that if it does not get filed, I will tell the court to take whatever action it pleases. The next day the affidavit was filed..In the affidavit it was revealed that only 15% of the work was done for projects in Vidarbha and Marathwada but 90% of the monies had already been spent!.And when a fact like that comes out, and the court says “Mr. Aney, don’t you think this ought to be investigated?” no right-minded lawyer is going to say, “No it should not.” You say, “Of course it should be. And whoever is found guilty should be booked.”.And investigations did begin and all the concerned officials and ministers (previous ministers as well) are in the dock as a result of it. They can’t like it very much..Anuj Agrawal: So when you took up the post, there was always a desire to improve the situation?.Shreehari Aney: I have always felt that much more than the normal elected representative, those who hold Constitutional posts occupy a different position in the scheme of the things. Be it the Governor, the Election Commissioner – these are Constitutional posts who can’t be subject to the normal laws of popularity or convenience. They represent the State in its true essence..And if these people do not speak up, it is never going to work. They have to speak up. To quote Lord Denning, “Silence is not an option when things are ill done.”.I have said this several times, but as the Advocate General I never saw myself as a lawyer of the government. To me, the Advocate General of necessity is the first lawyer of the people. He must, above all and to the best of his ability, put forward what he thinks is best for the interest of the people..And if that draws fire and brimstone on someones head, then so be it..Anuj Agrawal: Moving to your career. After 20 years in Nagpur, was it difficult to enter the Bombay Bar? .Shreehari Aney: Not at all. And this I must say about the city, not just the Bar alone. This city accepts ability just like that (snaps his fingers) It takes no time at all. The city acknowledges talent, it rewards it..I had enough solicitors briefing me and I don’t think anybody ever made me feel that I wasn’t getting a fair share of the work..I had offices in Nagpur, Aurangabad, Delhi and Bombay. We eventually shut them down one by one. We did all kinds of matters from writs in Nagpur, to taxation, trade and commerce matters in Bombay, to revenue and election matters in Aurangabad..Anuj Agrawal: How do you recruit?.Shreehari Aney: It is not that difficult. I think all seniors try to limit the number of juniors, to ensure that each one is not only given work but also that you have the time to put into his or her growth..It is increasingly a rare thing, but a young lawyer has to be brought into the profession. My seniors, including KH Deshpande who still practices in Nagpur, did that..The senior would necessarily be someone who not only acts as mentor but also teaches him the law and the business of lawyering. There is a ground rule that no one stays in my office for more than five years. So once they are out, they have to fend for themselves. So you must teach them enough so that they can do that..And you must allocate them enough work so that they can do well. I used to hold retainers for several authorities; whenever a junior hived out, he would take an authority with him..Anuj Agrawal: That is quite generous..Shreehari Aney: Not really. Beyond a point you have so much work, what the hell are you going to do with it? And [the juniors] are the ones who have been working on it. So why shouldn’t they continue with it?.I am proud to say that every one of my juniors is a leading practitioner in whichever court he or she has gone to, be it Aurangabad, Nagpur or Bombay..Anuj Agrawal: So what do you look for in a junior?.Shreehari Aney: I will tell you what I look for to throw him out – any shade of dishonesty. Given a moral dilemma, if a young man prefers the easy way out or is not willing to take the consequences of a tough decision that is morally correct – I would not want to waste my time on him. I don’t think he is going to gain anything from me..There is something called honest lawyering, and it is not all that difficult. There are plenty of honest lawyers out there. It is a trait that needs to be inculcated and cultivated..There is something called honest lawyering, and it is not all that difficult. There are plenty of honest lawyers out there. It is a trait that needs to be inculcated and cultivated..Of course, the strength of ones’ moral convictions has to come from a much earlier time. You have to grow into it. This is not something that is taught to you in the third year of law school or your fifth year of practice. It begins much earlier..Anuj Agrawal: Thoughts on joining the Bench?.Shreehari Aney: The first time I said yes, I was thirty-eight years old. I would have been Chief Justice of India for fourteen years running, including today may I add. Justice C Mukherjee was the Chief Justice back then, and he had asked me to join the Bench..It did not work out because we did not have the collegium system back then; the concurrence of the government was needed. And we had this huge problem of my Vidarbha stance..I was asked point blank by the then Chief Minister whether I would give up the movement. And I said of course I would. A judge cannot carry his political convictions to his office, that would be grossly unfair..I said I will give up the movement after I have been made judge. To which the answer was, “No, we would rather you stop it right now and then we will consider you for judgeship.” To which I said, “Sorry it does not work for me.” And that was the end of that..Thereafter two more judges, Justice Shah and Dalveer Bhandari both asked me to become a judge, and I declined. This has been far too long ago. On my own personal level I believe it is a right decision..Anuj Agrawal: Why?.“Nobody should be a judge of the Supreme Court for fourteen years, leave alone Chief Justice. You mess up the country’s life, your own views will prevail. It becomes a fiefdom!”.Shreehari Aney: Nobody should be a judge of the Supreme Court for fourteen years, leave alone Chief Justice..You mess up the country’s life, your own views will prevail. It becomes a fiefdom!.Therefore saying no to the Advocate Generalship was so easy – these things really don’t matter do they?.I am not in the process of collecting items for my curriculum vitae anymore. What does it matter?.To be continued.