Justice Prabha Sridevan was born into a family of legendary lawyers. Her great grandfather was legendary lawyer and philanthropist V Krishnaswami Iyer..She decided to study law herself at the age of 31, after the birth of her two sons. She went on to become a lawyer and continued even after suffering a personal tragedy. She served as a judge of the Madras High Court, from 2000 to 2010. Post retirement, she was the Chairperson of the now defunct Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).As is apparent in this conversation with Bar and Bench’s Ayesha Arvind, Justice Sridevan exudes empathy. It is a quality that has shone through in her judgments, including National Insurance v. Deepika, which recognised a homemaker’s worth for the first time. She has also passed verdicts that effectively made cancer medicines more affordable for Indian citizens.She also speaks about the ideal qualities a judge ought to possess - including the ability to 'walk in another's shoes' - the toothlessness of tribunals, her hobby of translating Tamil literature into English and more.Edited excerpts follow..Ayesha Arvind (AA): You grew up hearing tales such as the Arbuthnot & Co case that your great-grandfather won. Did that make you want to become a lawyer?.Justice Prabha Sridevan: I had no intention of becoming a lawyer. For the longest time, I had no idea what I wished to become. I remember when I was six, I wanted to be a brick layer because I used to love the smell of cement! Then later, I thought of becoming an engineer.I went to Stella Maris College in Chennai and because of the influence of my English lecturer, I switched and studied English Literature. I thought of going to Cambridge to study, but did not pursue it.And then, I got married..AA: After marrying into a family of lawyers, you ended up studying law. How did that happen?.Justice Sridevan: My father-in-law AS Venkatraman was a leading lawyer of Mayiladuthurai. My husband, Sridevan, who was the Special Government Pleader at the Madras High Court from 1986 to 1988, too was a very good lawyer. He was very handsome, and had extraordinary charisma. Anybody who saw him, fell in love with him. But, he died when he was only 54.It was my husband who had said one day, “Why don’t you study law?” This was in 1979. I was 31 years old and had two sons.I thought if I did law, even if the children went away when they grew up, I would live with my husband happily forever. That didn't happen of course, as life had other plans. But that was my incentive to do law..AA: After graduating from law college, you joined your husband’s office. Did you ever have this moment of clarity that you had done the right thing?.Justice Sridevan: I never had that kind of clarity or fire inside me. The person I became eventually and the person who, you say, transcended into my orders and judgments, came after my husband died.It was so sudden, out of the blue. Overnight, life changed and I had to continue and to take control. So, I became whatever I became. Otherwise, I would have stayed in his shadow. That is all I was earlier and I was very happy doing that. But once he was gone, I didn’t have that option anymore.And I witnessed the widow’s stigma first-hand, because we are quite conservative. This was the year 1993 and a lot had changed. I was not asked to shave my head, but there was so much latent exclusion that I had to face socially and culturally. It was very hurtful. For a while, I did not know what to do with all the hurt and anger, and bitterness that I was feeling. Then someone very wise advised me to channel all that hurt and anger into something positive.And that was my cue. I realised I could translate such exclusion to something useful. I understood that the law gave me the option to stay in the house, do my job, to not have to brandish a flag or raise my voice, because I am not that kind of a person. But I could still make a difference.Had life not dealt me such a blow, I might not have engaged with these imbalances that exist in society..AA: How did the elevation to the Bench happen?.Justice Sridevan: This was in the year 2000. I think they were looking for a woman judge to take charge. I was the fifth woman judge of the Madras High Court so, it wasn’t the case that there had not been other women judges, but there hadn’t been anyone from our own (Madras) Bar..AA: What was the experience of being a woman judge like?.Justice Sridevan: I actually had a good experience. Also, fortunately for me, the three other judges with whom I was elevated - Justices Kalifullah, Raviraja Pandiyan and Murugesan - we formed a very strong friendship which continues till today. So, I never felt very lonely. Though there were women judges after me, these three friends were enough.The first bench I was ever part of was led by Justice Jayasimha Babu, and I will never forget him, because he taught me so much.I also realised that this whole issue of gender works two ways. A woman faces a lot of difficulties when starting her career in law. But I lucked out because I joined my husband's office. So, I was protected in a sense. But I remember an incident from when I first became a judge. During a luncheon, a lawyer friend said, 'Now that you are a judge, you can ensure that the High Court campus is kept clean'.I thought, why must you typecast someone?.AA: A constitutional court, you have said in the past, must be a non-gendered, non-prejudiced place that allows equal access to justice to everyone. Does that really happen in practice?.Justice Sridevan: A court can be very intimidating for an ordinary litigant. Forget the geographical and financial aspects of litigation, just that first step inside a court can prove to be very intimidating for someone. I remember when (former South African judge) Justice Albie Sachs, whom I admire very much, had visited the Madras High Court. I was a lawyer then, and I had been assigned the duty to show him around. He had looked at the grandeur of our court building and had said to me, “I am a judge of the Supreme Court of my country. Even I feel intimidated by your buildings, then what will a woman from the village feel?”I have never forgotten that.The way our justice delivery system operates, the levels of hierarchy, the infrastructure, all of these factors can keep not just women, but anyone who is marginalised, away from the courts. That is why I have often said that a pre-litigation system should be strongly put in place where parties can sit in an equal space and sort out their dispute.But the truth is that we are all addicted to this power game, really. And so, we want to keep reinforcing this power structure..AA: What is your notion of an ideal judge or an ideal justice system?.Justice Sridevan: This might seem impractical, but the ideal system should be one that can look at the person in front of them seeking justice as a person.So many times, a litigant just wants to be treated as a person. And I think the first court is where there should be greatest sensitivity and easiest of access and the best legal help..AA: Walking in another's shoes is a principle you have constantly advocated for and lived by. Tell us about it..Justice Sridevan: I came across this advice on ‘walking in another’s shoes’ in a judgment by (former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada) Justice Claire L’heureux Dube. I read it within four months of my becoming a lawyer and this advice meant a great deal. I realised that I can't understand the pain of those in front of me if I don't make an attempt to understand their point of view. I have tried to walk in the other’s shoes. I am sure I must have failed and faltered at times, but I sincerely tried..AA: But is this approach practicable?.Justice Sridevan: Once you become a judge, you are very alone. And there is so much riding on your shoulders. I will give you an example. Within six months of my becoming a judge, I was sitting with Justice VS Sirpurkar and we had a death penalty case. That was the first time that it really struck me that judges deal with someone’s life. That was very scary. Especially because I do not favour the death penalty as a person. But I also know that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that certain situations warrant the death penalty.I was afraid that if Justice Sirpurkar confirmed the death penalty, then I would have to dissent, and how was I going to do it? That worried me a great deal. Thankfully, he did not confirm it and commuted it to a life sentence so, all I had to say was that I agreed with him..AA: How does a judge remain objective? .Justice Sridevan: I am sure there must have been times where I would have felt that my hands were tied by the law. I remember once there was a case where the second wife of a man was asking for maintenance. And the Supreme Court as well as a bench of the Madras High Court have held that while there are rights under the Succession Act for illegitimate children, there is no such thing as an ‘illegitimate wife.’I did not think that was right. I didn't know what to do. At that time, just by chance, I met Chief Justice KA Swami, who had retired by then. I asked him what I should do when I don’t agree with the precedents? And he gave me a very valuable piece of advice. He said, in such a case, you write what you think and then you say, “But I am bound by judicial discipline.” That way, what you think today might become the law someday, he said.And in this particular matter, that is what I did. The wife didn't get maintenance. I couldn’t give her any relief. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act itself is confusing and I expressed that confusion in my judgment. But what to do? I was helpless..AA: This brings me to the pathbreaking judgment you authored in 2009 in National Insurance Company v. Deepika, in which the economic worth of a homemaker’s work was recognised..Justice Sridevan: I was on a bench with Justice TS Sivagnanam when the matter came to court. A child lost both her parents in a motor accident. Her grandparents filed for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The insurance company filed an appeal against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, saying that it was too high. And I wondered then, how much is a mother worth?I knew that the moment had come for the Court to speak about the work that a woman does at home. I told Justice Sivagnanam that we should write about this. It was not a ground that was raised by a party, but it had to be written, and if the Supreme Court rejected it on technical grounds, so be it.Luckily for women, the Supreme Court (the Bench of Justices VS Singhvi and AK Ganguly) upheld it.Recently, Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan gave a judgment on the homemaker’s worth. They didn’t mention Deepika, but one can see very clearly that it echoes whatever was said in the Madras High Court judgment.Today, no one and no court can dismiss the role played by a homemaker. And it happened only because I followed what Justice Swami said - you say it and then we’ll see..AA: Tell us about the Novartis judgment, in which you held Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Law as constitutional and ultimately ensured that thousands of cancer patients across the country had access to cheaper anti-cancer drugs..Justice Sridevan: In the Madras High Court, Justice R Balasubramanian and I were hearing Novartis petition. At that time, the patent also was not given. So, Novartis had filed two petitions - one challenging the constitutional vires and the other challenging the non-grant of the patent. We told the lawyers (Soli Sorabjee and Shanti Bhushan) that we will hear the constitutionality first and then the patentability. We upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3(d).Novartis changed the meaning of the word 'efficacy' forever. I don’t know if people understand its importance. Because if you understand it as just solubility, then even salt will get a patent. Whereas, that judgment said it has to be therapeutic efficacy. Even recently, I met Justice Balasubramaniam and he asked me, how did we do that? We are so proud of the judgment. It changed the landscape forever..AA: You have said earlier that the Coimbatore blast case taught you much about the criminal justice system and the functioning of the State. Could you share some insights?.Justice Sridevan: I actually took up that case very reluctantly. Many judges before me had said no to it, and so the Chief Justice assigned it to me. He said, you choose your partner. I told him I would like to have Justice M Sathyanarayanan, because he is so good with facts. And that bench turned out to be a real partnership. After a week, I went to the Chief Justice and said I am glad I took it up because it proved to be an education for me.I realised that civil law teaches you a lot of things, but criminal law really opens your eyes to what our country is like. How it treats its citizens. What triggers violence..AA: You made a note to appreciate the way the sessions court had conducted the trial in the Coimbatore blast case..Justice Sridevan: I have said this before and I will say it now too. There are many trial court judgments that are braver than High Court and Supreme Court judgments. This Coimbatore blast case judgment of the sessions judge is one such case. There were 163 accused. And they had formed several groups among them and wouldn’t agree on any legal counsel. And if the judge asked why can’t you cooperate, one man actually said, “outside too we are in a prison so what difference does it make?” The judge has actually recorded this in his order.This judge didn’t lose patience. He slowly worked to make them comfortable. He adjusted the hearings to make time for the Ramzan period. And slowly, they felt that they would cooperate. Probably because he built that kind of trust. One can see that the sessions judge walked in their shoes. He saw that they did not even have access to adequate legal aid, and gave reasons why he was not awarding the death penalty..AA: What stops so many other judges from doing this?.Justice Sridevan: I wonder about it too. At the High Court level too, a judge possesses immense powers and has great responsibilities. So what stops these judges from seeing everyone in a fair manner? It is possible. But, to be fair to the judges, they aren't even conscious of the baggage that they are carrying..AA: Are judgments and justice delivery gendered?.Justice Sridevan: It may not happen often, but it does happen. For instance, when the Deepika judgment was given, my friend and colleague, Justice K Raviraja Pandian immediately called me and said, “I total agree with all of it. But why didn’t I write such a judgment?” I told him because that is not your life. You haven’t lived this. You have never lived or experienced the traditional homemaker’s role first-hand.Soon after I became a judge, there was a trademark dispute between two companies manufacturing idli grinders. There was a design with two side grinders and one with a conical thing in between. So this conical man got a patent. The two-roller man, who was against the patent, said that this not a big invention. And then he said, “This is so simple, even a woman could understand.” I simmered but didn’t say anything.Later, I told Justice Babu, who was on the bench with me, that I was very angry and he said, “You should have told me." He agreed that the lawyer should not have made such a statement. But when that happened, it hadn’t offended him. That is the difference. And that lawyer who had made that statement - if you look at perceived or typecast roles of a patriarchal person - he doesn’t fit into any of those. Yet, he made that statement. For him too, it is ‘even’ a woman..AA: How can a judge get over prejudices?.Justice Sridevan: I think what all judges and lawyers need to remember is that the Constitution is there to guide us through everything. They should keep remembering every day that the Constitution is our only guide.There are all kinds of inequalities around us. Some we face, some we don’t. But the judiciary must constantly endeavour to minimise this gap. That is the whole point of the judiciary’s existence. And there is always that solution smiling at us in the Constitution. It is either hidden or apparent. We just have to find it, even when we are under pressure.Also, I think the judiciary is often like the Thanjavur bobblehead doll that ultimately regains balance every time we think it has tilted. And it should for the sake of all of us.AA: You became the IPAB Chairperson in 2011. How was your experience at the IPAB? After it was abolished, you had said that the scrapping of the Board had become a necessity..Justice Sridevan: It was good for me from a personal point of view, I learnt so much.But I also realised that the government creates tribunals merely as a cosmetic measure. It doesn’t have any real interest. Yet, judges somehow play into the hands of the government by agreeing to this tribunalisation. It is wrong. Tribunals must be institutionally as strong as the courts they replace, but that doesn’t happen..AA: What is the government's incentive to set up tribunals if it is not interested in empowering them?.Justice Sridevan: Shall I say it is merely to give their retired executives and judges a place to park themselves after retirement?At IPAB, the facilities were so dismal. There were no parity of pay for registry and staff. I saw lawyers from all over the country, yet, there was no parity when it came to powers, infrastructure etc..AA: At the IPAB, you gave us a landmark judgment on compulsory licensing in the case of NATCO Pharma v. Bayer Corporation..Justice Sridevan: Nexavar by Bayer is a palliative drug for patients suffering from renal cell carcinoma and hepato-cellular carcinoma. The cost at which Bayer sold it worked out to about ₹2,80,000 per month, and very few in India could afford such an expensive drug. NATCO applied for a compulsory licence .When the matter was being argued, I mentioned the name of one of the richest persons in India who alone could possibly have afforded the medicine, and asked the counsel for Bayer if the rest of India should gently die? He said I was being unfair. I was not. I was curious, as I knew I could not afford it at that price. It was impossible not to feel the pain of a person who could not afford the medicine, because it had been placed out of his or her reach by these companies.This case taught me that in every intellectual property case, public interest is an invisible figure which cannot be ignored..AA: Are there things that are unique to the Madras Bar or the judges here at the Madras High Court?.Justice Sridevan: I can't tell you that because I don't know any other world. But I have a long-standing grievance, which I think is justified. It is that people do not look south of the Vindhyas too much. They don't give a lot of attention to our part of the world.Someone should just take a head count of the number of judges from the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court that have been elevated to the Supreme Court versus judges from High Courts in the southern states who have made it to the Supreme Court.You can even try to balance Bombay and Delhi on one side and the rest of India on the other. And we talk of inclusivity!.AA: Do you have any advice for lawyers and judges?.Justice Sridevan: Two judges who have inspired me greatly are Justice Ruma Pal and Justice KT Thomas. Once, when I was at the Madurai bench, I was assigned the criminal matter roster and I was to head the bench. Since I had never done this before, I was feeling nervous. I remember calling Justice Thomas, who had retired by then, and telling him, 'Sir, I am so scared.' And he said to me, 'What is there to be scared about?'Towards the end of the conversation, he said, 'All you have to do Justice Prabha, is to sit right and everything will come to you.' This ‘sit right’ has served me well throughout my life since then. It has so many layers to it and I have tried to 'sit right' ever since.And I think all of us judges and lawyers should make this a motto of our lives..AA: How did you transition to writing and translating Tamil literature? .Justice Sridevan: I had written some 10-11 short stories that were published before I became a lawyer.I don't know why I stopped writing though. I sometimes say that maybe because I started listening to the stories of my clients, I stopped writing all other stories!While I was coming to the end of my tenure as the IPAB chairperson, I read a book. It was a collection of short stories by the celebrated Tamizh writer R Chudamini.I have this habit where if I see a movie or read a book, I immediately have to share my experience that reinforces the joy, so I shared it with my friend. I told her how much I loved the book. She's a Tamizh speaker, but she can't read Tamizh.And that is when the idea came to me. I thought I must translate these words because these are such great books and there are so many people who don't have access to it because of the language.Translating has exposed me to other lives that I might not have known otherwise. It is another kind of walking in another’s shoes. It makes me immensely happy.
Justice Prabha Sridevan was born into a family of legendary lawyers. Her great grandfather was legendary lawyer and philanthropist V Krishnaswami Iyer..She decided to study law herself at the age of 31, after the birth of her two sons. She went on to become a lawyer and continued even after suffering a personal tragedy. She served as a judge of the Madras High Court, from 2000 to 2010. Post retirement, she was the Chairperson of the now defunct Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).As is apparent in this conversation with Bar and Bench’s Ayesha Arvind, Justice Sridevan exudes empathy. It is a quality that has shone through in her judgments, including National Insurance v. Deepika, which recognised a homemaker’s worth for the first time. She has also passed verdicts that effectively made cancer medicines more affordable for Indian citizens.She also speaks about the ideal qualities a judge ought to possess - including the ability to 'walk in another's shoes' - the toothlessness of tribunals, her hobby of translating Tamil literature into English and more.Edited excerpts follow..Ayesha Arvind (AA): You grew up hearing tales such as the Arbuthnot & Co case that your great-grandfather won. Did that make you want to become a lawyer?.Justice Prabha Sridevan: I had no intention of becoming a lawyer. For the longest time, I had no idea what I wished to become. I remember when I was six, I wanted to be a brick layer because I used to love the smell of cement! Then later, I thought of becoming an engineer.I went to Stella Maris College in Chennai and because of the influence of my English lecturer, I switched and studied English Literature. I thought of going to Cambridge to study, but did not pursue it.And then, I got married..AA: After marrying into a family of lawyers, you ended up studying law. How did that happen?.Justice Sridevan: My father-in-law AS Venkatraman was a leading lawyer of Mayiladuthurai. My husband, Sridevan, who was the Special Government Pleader at the Madras High Court from 1986 to 1988, too was a very good lawyer. He was very handsome, and had extraordinary charisma. Anybody who saw him, fell in love with him. But, he died when he was only 54.It was my husband who had said one day, “Why don’t you study law?” This was in 1979. I was 31 years old and had two sons.I thought if I did law, even if the children went away when they grew up, I would live with my husband happily forever. That didn't happen of course, as life had other plans. But that was my incentive to do law..AA: After graduating from law college, you joined your husband’s office. Did you ever have this moment of clarity that you had done the right thing?.Justice Sridevan: I never had that kind of clarity or fire inside me. The person I became eventually and the person who, you say, transcended into my orders and judgments, came after my husband died.It was so sudden, out of the blue. Overnight, life changed and I had to continue and to take control. So, I became whatever I became. Otherwise, I would have stayed in his shadow. That is all I was earlier and I was very happy doing that. But once he was gone, I didn’t have that option anymore.And I witnessed the widow’s stigma first-hand, because we are quite conservative. This was the year 1993 and a lot had changed. I was not asked to shave my head, but there was so much latent exclusion that I had to face socially and culturally. It was very hurtful. For a while, I did not know what to do with all the hurt and anger, and bitterness that I was feeling. Then someone very wise advised me to channel all that hurt and anger into something positive.And that was my cue. I realised I could translate such exclusion to something useful. I understood that the law gave me the option to stay in the house, do my job, to not have to brandish a flag or raise my voice, because I am not that kind of a person. But I could still make a difference.Had life not dealt me such a blow, I might not have engaged with these imbalances that exist in society..AA: How did the elevation to the Bench happen?.Justice Sridevan: This was in the year 2000. I think they were looking for a woman judge to take charge. I was the fifth woman judge of the Madras High Court so, it wasn’t the case that there had not been other women judges, but there hadn’t been anyone from our own (Madras) Bar..AA: What was the experience of being a woman judge like?.Justice Sridevan: I actually had a good experience. Also, fortunately for me, the three other judges with whom I was elevated - Justices Kalifullah, Raviraja Pandiyan and Murugesan - we formed a very strong friendship which continues till today. So, I never felt very lonely. Though there were women judges after me, these three friends were enough.The first bench I was ever part of was led by Justice Jayasimha Babu, and I will never forget him, because he taught me so much.I also realised that this whole issue of gender works two ways. A woman faces a lot of difficulties when starting her career in law. But I lucked out because I joined my husband's office. So, I was protected in a sense. But I remember an incident from when I first became a judge. During a luncheon, a lawyer friend said, 'Now that you are a judge, you can ensure that the High Court campus is kept clean'.I thought, why must you typecast someone?.AA: A constitutional court, you have said in the past, must be a non-gendered, non-prejudiced place that allows equal access to justice to everyone. Does that really happen in practice?.Justice Sridevan: A court can be very intimidating for an ordinary litigant. Forget the geographical and financial aspects of litigation, just that first step inside a court can prove to be very intimidating for someone. I remember when (former South African judge) Justice Albie Sachs, whom I admire very much, had visited the Madras High Court. I was a lawyer then, and I had been assigned the duty to show him around. He had looked at the grandeur of our court building and had said to me, “I am a judge of the Supreme Court of my country. Even I feel intimidated by your buildings, then what will a woman from the village feel?”I have never forgotten that.The way our justice delivery system operates, the levels of hierarchy, the infrastructure, all of these factors can keep not just women, but anyone who is marginalised, away from the courts. That is why I have often said that a pre-litigation system should be strongly put in place where parties can sit in an equal space and sort out their dispute.But the truth is that we are all addicted to this power game, really. And so, we want to keep reinforcing this power structure..AA: What is your notion of an ideal judge or an ideal justice system?.Justice Sridevan: This might seem impractical, but the ideal system should be one that can look at the person in front of them seeking justice as a person.So many times, a litigant just wants to be treated as a person. And I think the first court is where there should be greatest sensitivity and easiest of access and the best legal help..AA: Walking in another's shoes is a principle you have constantly advocated for and lived by. Tell us about it..Justice Sridevan: I came across this advice on ‘walking in another’s shoes’ in a judgment by (former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada) Justice Claire L’heureux Dube. I read it within four months of my becoming a lawyer and this advice meant a great deal. I realised that I can't understand the pain of those in front of me if I don't make an attempt to understand their point of view. I have tried to walk in the other’s shoes. I am sure I must have failed and faltered at times, but I sincerely tried..AA: But is this approach practicable?.Justice Sridevan: Once you become a judge, you are very alone. And there is so much riding on your shoulders. I will give you an example. Within six months of my becoming a judge, I was sitting with Justice VS Sirpurkar and we had a death penalty case. That was the first time that it really struck me that judges deal with someone’s life. That was very scary. Especially because I do not favour the death penalty as a person. But I also know that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that certain situations warrant the death penalty.I was afraid that if Justice Sirpurkar confirmed the death penalty, then I would have to dissent, and how was I going to do it? That worried me a great deal. Thankfully, he did not confirm it and commuted it to a life sentence so, all I had to say was that I agreed with him..AA: How does a judge remain objective? .Justice Sridevan: I am sure there must have been times where I would have felt that my hands were tied by the law. I remember once there was a case where the second wife of a man was asking for maintenance. And the Supreme Court as well as a bench of the Madras High Court have held that while there are rights under the Succession Act for illegitimate children, there is no such thing as an ‘illegitimate wife.’I did not think that was right. I didn't know what to do. At that time, just by chance, I met Chief Justice KA Swami, who had retired by then. I asked him what I should do when I don’t agree with the precedents? And he gave me a very valuable piece of advice. He said, in such a case, you write what you think and then you say, “But I am bound by judicial discipline.” That way, what you think today might become the law someday, he said.And in this particular matter, that is what I did. The wife didn't get maintenance. I couldn’t give her any relief. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act itself is confusing and I expressed that confusion in my judgment. But what to do? I was helpless..AA: This brings me to the pathbreaking judgment you authored in 2009 in National Insurance Company v. Deepika, in which the economic worth of a homemaker’s work was recognised..Justice Sridevan: I was on a bench with Justice TS Sivagnanam when the matter came to court. A child lost both her parents in a motor accident. Her grandparents filed for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The insurance company filed an appeal against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, saying that it was too high. And I wondered then, how much is a mother worth?I knew that the moment had come for the Court to speak about the work that a woman does at home. I told Justice Sivagnanam that we should write about this. It was not a ground that was raised by a party, but it had to be written, and if the Supreme Court rejected it on technical grounds, so be it.Luckily for women, the Supreme Court (the Bench of Justices VS Singhvi and AK Ganguly) upheld it.Recently, Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan gave a judgment on the homemaker’s worth. They didn’t mention Deepika, but one can see very clearly that it echoes whatever was said in the Madras High Court judgment.Today, no one and no court can dismiss the role played by a homemaker. And it happened only because I followed what Justice Swami said - you say it and then we’ll see..AA: Tell us about the Novartis judgment, in which you held Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Law as constitutional and ultimately ensured that thousands of cancer patients across the country had access to cheaper anti-cancer drugs..Justice Sridevan: In the Madras High Court, Justice R Balasubramanian and I were hearing Novartis petition. At that time, the patent also was not given. So, Novartis had filed two petitions - one challenging the constitutional vires and the other challenging the non-grant of the patent. We told the lawyers (Soli Sorabjee and Shanti Bhushan) that we will hear the constitutionality first and then the patentability. We upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3(d).Novartis changed the meaning of the word 'efficacy' forever. I don’t know if people understand its importance. Because if you understand it as just solubility, then even salt will get a patent. Whereas, that judgment said it has to be therapeutic efficacy. Even recently, I met Justice Balasubramaniam and he asked me, how did we do that? We are so proud of the judgment. It changed the landscape forever..AA: You have said earlier that the Coimbatore blast case taught you much about the criminal justice system and the functioning of the State. Could you share some insights?.Justice Sridevan: I actually took up that case very reluctantly. Many judges before me had said no to it, and so the Chief Justice assigned it to me. He said, you choose your partner. I told him I would like to have Justice M Sathyanarayanan, because he is so good with facts. And that bench turned out to be a real partnership. After a week, I went to the Chief Justice and said I am glad I took it up because it proved to be an education for me.I realised that civil law teaches you a lot of things, but criminal law really opens your eyes to what our country is like. How it treats its citizens. What triggers violence..AA: You made a note to appreciate the way the sessions court had conducted the trial in the Coimbatore blast case..Justice Sridevan: I have said this before and I will say it now too. There are many trial court judgments that are braver than High Court and Supreme Court judgments. This Coimbatore blast case judgment of the sessions judge is one such case. There were 163 accused. And they had formed several groups among them and wouldn’t agree on any legal counsel. And if the judge asked why can’t you cooperate, one man actually said, “outside too we are in a prison so what difference does it make?” The judge has actually recorded this in his order.This judge didn’t lose patience. He slowly worked to make them comfortable. He adjusted the hearings to make time for the Ramzan period. And slowly, they felt that they would cooperate. Probably because he built that kind of trust. One can see that the sessions judge walked in their shoes. He saw that they did not even have access to adequate legal aid, and gave reasons why he was not awarding the death penalty..AA: What stops so many other judges from doing this?.Justice Sridevan: I wonder about it too. At the High Court level too, a judge possesses immense powers and has great responsibilities. So what stops these judges from seeing everyone in a fair manner? It is possible. But, to be fair to the judges, they aren't even conscious of the baggage that they are carrying..AA: Are judgments and justice delivery gendered?.Justice Sridevan: It may not happen often, but it does happen. For instance, when the Deepika judgment was given, my friend and colleague, Justice K Raviraja Pandian immediately called me and said, “I total agree with all of it. But why didn’t I write such a judgment?” I told him because that is not your life. You haven’t lived this. You have never lived or experienced the traditional homemaker’s role first-hand.Soon after I became a judge, there was a trademark dispute between two companies manufacturing idli grinders. There was a design with two side grinders and one with a conical thing in between. So this conical man got a patent. The two-roller man, who was against the patent, said that this not a big invention. And then he said, “This is so simple, even a woman could understand.” I simmered but didn’t say anything.Later, I told Justice Babu, who was on the bench with me, that I was very angry and he said, “You should have told me." He agreed that the lawyer should not have made such a statement. But when that happened, it hadn’t offended him. That is the difference. And that lawyer who had made that statement - if you look at perceived or typecast roles of a patriarchal person - he doesn’t fit into any of those. Yet, he made that statement. For him too, it is ‘even’ a woman..AA: How can a judge get over prejudices?.Justice Sridevan: I think what all judges and lawyers need to remember is that the Constitution is there to guide us through everything. They should keep remembering every day that the Constitution is our only guide.There are all kinds of inequalities around us. Some we face, some we don’t. But the judiciary must constantly endeavour to minimise this gap. That is the whole point of the judiciary’s existence. And there is always that solution smiling at us in the Constitution. It is either hidden or apparent. We just have to find it, even when we are under pressure.Also, I think the judiciary is often like the Thanjavur bobblehead doll that ultimately regains balance every time we think it has tilted. And it should for the sake of all of us.AA: You became the IPAB Chairperson in 2011. How was your experience at the IPAB? After it was abolished, you had said that the scrapping of the Board had become a necessity..Justice Sridevan: It was good for me from a personal point of view, I learnt so much.But I also realised that the government creates tribunals merely as a cosmetic measure. It doesn’t have any real interest. Yet, judges somehow play into the hands of the government by agreeing to this tribunalisation. It is wrong. Tribunals must be institutionally as strong as the courts they replace, but that doesn’t happen..AA: What is the government's incentive to set up tribunals if it is not interested in empowering them?.Justice Sridevan: Shall I say it is merely to give their retired executives and judges a place to park themselves after retirement?At IPAB, the facilities were so dismal. There were no parity of pay for registry and staff. I saw lawyers from all over the country, yet, there was no parity when it came to powers, infrastructure etc..AA: At the IPAB, you gave us a landmark judgment on compulsory licensing in the case of NATCO Pharma v. Bayer Corporation..Justice Sridevan: Nexavar by Bayer is a palliative drug for patients suffering from renal cell carcinoma and hepato-cellular carcinoma. The cost at which Bayer sold it worked out to about ₹2,80,000 per month, and very few in India could afford such an expensive drug. NATCO applied for a compulsory licence .When the matter was being argued, I mentioned the name of one of the richest persons in India who alone could possibly have afforded the medicine, and asked the counsel for Bayer if the rest of India should gently die? He said I was being unfair. I was not. I was curious, as I knew I could not afford it at that price. It was impossible not to feel the pain of a person who could not afford the medicine, because it had been placed out of his or her reach by these companies.This case taught me that in every intellectual property case, public interest is an invisible figure which cannot be ignored..AA: Are there things that are unique to the Madras Bar or the judges here at the Madras High Court?.Justice Sridevan: I can't tell you that because I don't know any other world. But I have a long-standing grievance, which I think is justified. It is that people do not look south of the Vindhyas too much. They don't give a lot of attention to our part of the world.Someone should just take a head count of the number of judges from the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court that have been elevated to the Supreme Court versus judges from High Courts in the southern states who have made it to the Supreme Court.You can even try to balance Bombay and Delhi on one side and the rest of India on the other. And we talk of inclusivity!.AA: Do you have any advice for lawyers and judges?.Justice Sridevan: Two judges who have inspired me greatly are Justice Ruma Pal and Justice KT Thomas. Once, when I was at the Madurai bench, I was assigned the criminal matter roster and I was to head the bench. Since I had never done this before, I was feeling nervous. I remember calling Justice Thomas, who had retired by then, and telling him, 'Sir, I am so scared.' And he said to me, 'What is there to be scared about?'Towards the end of the conversation, he said, 'All you have to do Justice Prabha, is to sit right and everything will come to you.' This ‘sit right’ has served me well throughout my life since then. It has so many layers to it and I have tried to 'sit right' ever since.And I think all of us judges and lawyers should make this a motto of our lives..AA: How did you transition to writing and translating Tamil literature? .Justice Sridevan: I had written some 10-11 short stories that were published before I became a lawyer.I don't know why I stopped writing though. I sometimes say that maybe because I started listening to the stories of my clients, I stopped writing all other stories!While I was coming to the end of my tenure as the IPAB chairperson, I read a book. It was a collection of short stories by the celebrated Tamizh writer R Chudamini.I have this habit where if I see a movie or read a book, I immediately have to share my experience that reinforces the joy, so I shared it with my friend. I told her how much I loved the book. She's a Tamizh speaker, but she can't read Tamizh.And that is when the idea came to me. I thought I must translate these words because these are such great books and there are so many people who don't have access to it because of the language.Translating has exposed me to other lives that I might not have known otherwise. It is another kind of walking in another’s shoes. It makes me immensely happy.
