In Conversation with Senior Advocate PS Raman

PS Raman, the former Advocate General of Tamil Nadu was recently in the news for representing Kamal Hassan in the Vishwaroopam case before the Madras High Court. In this interview with Bar & Bench, the Senior Advocate shares his thoughts on the entire controversy, life as the son of a legal luminary, and what it takes to be a good lawyer..Bar & Bench: Looks like the Vishwaroopam controversy has been settled. Your initial reaction?.PS Raman: Well, I would have loved to have created case law on Article 19(1)(a) but in the end what has happened is something that is beneficial to the client. The client will finally be able to release the picture with the cooperation of both, the State government as well as the objectors..B&B: Were you surprised by the decision of the Single Bench to watch the movie first?.PSR: See, the judge was very clear when it came to the decision about watching the film. He told us not once but twice, that if we had any objection to the film being watched, they will not watch it. So I spoke to [Actor/Co-producer] Kamal Hassan and he said, “By all means, let them watch it”. Kamal was supremely confident that if anybody watched it then they would immediately become aware that too much was being made out of nothing..B&B: But don’t you think the watching of the film itself by the Court sets a dangerous precedent?.PSR: No it is not a question of precedent. Every case has to be viewed on its own facts. If there really was something objectionable about the film and suppose the Censor Board had passed it, maybe we would have stuck to its guns and said that there was no question of viewing it at all..If you read Prakash Jha’s judgment, the Supreme Court actually deprecated the State government’s decision to appoint a High Level Committee to view a film. The Supreme Court said that such an exercise is impermissible in law. So theoretically I could also have objected to the judge watching it but Kamal was so supremely confident that the film had nothing objectionable in it that he said, “Let everybody watch it.”.B&B: With respect to your professional career, what was it like working with your father, Senior Advocate VP Raman?.PSR: Oh it was an excellent experience. But, as I had mentioned in one of my earlier interviews, apparently the VP Raman with whom I worked from 1984 was not the VP Raman of the 1970’s and the early ‘80s. Some of my father’s friends and colleagues have told me that the VP Raman with whom I worked with was a much softer version of the earlier one, the one who was a complete fire brand..B&B: When you started your practice, what were some of the challenges you faced?.PSR: The first challenge I faced, and one which I shall face for the rest of my career, is going to be a continuous comparison with my father. That is something which any person who is the son of a famous person will have to bear that cross. In fact, my elder brother declined to go into law only because in his mind, he perceived that it is a no-win situation. Because if you are successful, the success will immediately be written off as “He is son of so-and so, what did you expect?” and if you fail, people are going to say, “Even with such a backing, he still failed”. So either way, it is a no-win situation..For me, I knew that I would be continuously compared. It has been 19 years since my father died. But even day before yesterday, an old gentleman from the Bar came to me and congratulated me on my arguments on the Vishwaroopam matter. The old lawyer immediately began reminiscing about my father. “I remember way back in 1959 when a political meeting was slated to be stopped by the State,” he told me, “your father argued so passionately…”.So for one generation of people, I will always be compared to my father. And this really doesn’t bother me. Initially I used to wonder why people can’t view me for what I am. After all, I am a Senior Advocate, former Advocate General of Tamil Nadu with almost 30 years of practice; no need to compare me with my father. But now, I just laugh it off..B&B: But surely there must be some advantages of coming from a family of lawyers?.PSR: Oh definitely. The son of a prominent lawyer has an enormous advantage when he gets into the Bar. For somebody like me, the day I walked into court, I walked in with the confidence of a person who has been in practice for five years..B&B: What was your reaction to being designated as Senior Advocate? Were you surprised?.PSR: No, there was no surprise because a few of my colleagues and I had all put in our papers for designation as Senior Advocate way back in 2003 itself. But, for almost a better part of eighteen months, when Chief Justice Reddy was heading our Court, the full Court never met to take up designations..B&B: What is your opinion of this practice of applying to become a Senior Advocate? Shouldn’t the Court call the lawyer to become a Senior Advocate?.PSR: I would say that ideally, the Court should call. But this might not be practicable these days. Look at it from this point of view: today, litigation is multi-sectoral. There are hundreds of kinds of litigations. In a court such as the Madras High Court which has [a sanctioned strength] of 60 judges, there are at least 8-10 different arenas of litigation which Benches are handling. There may be extremely good counsels who are good in their branch; they may be excellent and very well known in that area but there may be judges who have not even heard of them. If the judges have not sat in that particular jurisdiction, they might not have even heard of these counsels..B&B: And what is your opinion of this roster system of judges? .PSR: See there are some benefits and some disadvantages to the roster system. One advantage of the roster system is that sometimes sitting in the same portfolio can get very tedious and boring for the judges. So some change of portfolio is like breath of fresh air for them. The disadvantage is that expertise is sometimes lost out. So I think a little bit of mix and match of these systems would be ideal..B&B: What is your opinion about Courts making oral observations in open court? Do you think that this practice ought to be curbed? PSR: See, I think that the mistake lies with the media there. Some of these oral observations are being reported as if they are part of the order. To a layman, who is reading the newspaper or watching the television, he is not going to be able to distinguish what is the order of the Court and what is merely an observation. So he will believe that everything is part of the [Court’s] order. The media has to be careful in reporting such matters..Justice Venkatraman, who heard the Vishwaroopam matter, used to candidly state in open court, “Okay, now what I am going to say, media do not report it.” Sometimes he would even take a particular reporter’s name and say “You are from so and so newspaper, you don’t report it” because perhaps he knew that previously something like that had been printed in the paper. So [the media] should exercise some restraint..It is not right to expect the Court to exercise this restraint because that is part of the process which takes place before the counsel and the Bench. When hearing any matter, unless the Court says what is in its mind, the counsels cannot react to it..B&B: When you became Tamil Nadu’s Advocate General, you continued your private practice. Were the two positions difficult to balance? .PSR: Well, it was difficult to balance but then I think the judges were very accommodating. They were aware that I had a private practice so some of them would accommodate me. When I would enter the Court, once the matter that was going on was over, the judge would ask me which item I was appearing for and if the other side was present, they would take the case out of turn and complete the matter. As a result, I was able to move from court to court and carry on with my work..And somehow I managed the private briefs as well. There was a little effort required, no doubt. There were days when I was given a list of twenty plus cases a day but my office managed them..B&B: As Advocate General, did you ever come across a situation where you advised the State not to pursue a particular litigation? .PSR: Several times..B&B: And what reaction did you receive?. PSR: By and large, they went by our word.B&B: Then why do you think the State remains the largest litigator?. PSR: See by its very nature, in the expanded scope of writ jurisprudence, the State is a party in every writ petition. So naturally, it is the largest litigator..It is only when the State moves in appeal, should you really think of the State as a litigator. And it is not in every case that the State files an appeal. I would agree though that there have been instances, even when I was AG, when for extremely small matters, I was asked my opinion on whether an appeal should be filed. And sometimes, I would find that somebody down the line in the bureaucracy had an axe to grind and therefore they were pursuing an appeal. In those cases, I would be quite merciless in giving the opinion that it was not a fit case for appeal. And they would, by and large, go with it..B&B: In February 2009, there was quite an ugly incident between lawyers and the police in the Madras High Court. Your thoughts? .PSR: See, I have always maintained that [the] February 19 [incident] was the last straw on the camel’s back. It was the point of ignition in a cauldron where, literally, several decades of seething mistrust and anger between the police and the advocates finally came to the forefront. There was much to be said about both groups. I don’t want to even think of who cast the first stone..But I think it was just a catharsis. The seething anger between the two-.B&B: But purely as an officer of the Court, don’t you think some action should be taken against the advocates who participated in the violence? .PSR: See today for example, things are quiet. Why is that so? Everybody has realised that things went out of control on February 19, 2009. The police realised that they acted disproportionately and that the courts would come down on their actions in a big way..A group of lawyers who would take the policemen for a ride, they also realised that their actions have to be a little more circumspect..B&B: Do you think that the State Bar Councils should be more effective?.PSR: Yes, they should be. They should know that when people latch on to agitations and stone throwing, those people don’t deserve to be in the Bar. I have always been a strong anti-boycott person. I believe that the Supreme Court has very categorically held a boycott to be illegal. [The Supreme Court has] said that such boycotts are contrary to the oath we all take. I think we should take the words of the Supreme Court seriously. We seem to be boycotting at the drop of the hat..B&B: What do you think about the young people joining the profession today?.PSR: I find the new crop of lawyers that are joining the Bar extremely good. They are far superior to those who joined at the time when, say I joined the Bar. Their knowledge is much deeper, their access to legal literature is much better. Overall I find them a much brighter lot..B&B: What do you think makes a good lawyer?.PSR: The first thing for a good lawyer is ability to express one’s self. The second is a logical mind. Your reasoning should be logical. Third, an ability to understand human nature, and an ability to react on the spot. I think the last is possibly the most important attribute a lawyer should have.