If you want real talent for the judiciary, the position should be more remunerative: Dama Seshadri Naidu [Part I]

Technophile, bibliophile and a former High Court judge, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu has been a journeyman through his life..Hailing from a small village in Chitoor district of Andhra Pradesh, Naidu completed his graduation from an open university while he was simultaneously working in a bank. He joined the legal profession at the age of 35, and was eventually elevated as a High Court judge. After serving as a judge at three High Courts, Naidu resigned in September 2021. He returned to advocacy a month later and currently practices in the Supreme Court. .In the first of this two-part interview with Bar and Bench's Neha Joshi, Naidu talks about his "accidental entry" into the legal profession, his experience of presiding at three different High Courts and why he resigned. The former judge also shares insight into why young advocates reject offers to join the bench.[Watch video interview].Edited excerpts follow..Neha Joshi (NJ): What prompted you to choose law as a profession?.Dama Seshadri Naidu (DSN): There are two ways to choose - one is by design and the other by accident. Most of the time, it is an accident. I never chose this profession until my mid-thirties. I began my journey in Chittoor district, where I did my schooling in a village nearby. I did polytechnic and a three-year diploma course. Then I did odd bits and odd jobs. When I felt that I couldn't fit in, I went back to my village and started cultivation. Then, somehow, I wrote this banking recruitment examination and got selected in a nationalized bank. There, I served for 11 years as a clerk. When I was serving, I needed to have a graduate degree for increment purposes; otherwise with a basic qualification of Class 10, you wouldn't be getting these increments. So for that purpose, I did my open Bachelor of Arts (BA). When I was going to the bank one day, I came across an old friend of mine. I asked him curiously, 'What are you doing?’ He said, ‘I am a lecturer at a law college’. ‘There's a law college in Tirupati?’ I asked him. ‘Yes, it's a private law college,’ he said. ‘If you pay 15,000 rupees fees for three years, you will get a degree’. I became curious, I thought why not get a degree for that purpose? I applied for a loan in the bank as I was an employee, went to the law college and got my admission. Somebody filed a PIL before the High Court that year complaining that many private colleges across Andhra Pradesh admitted students without this law set. So all our admissions were cancelled. I went back to the college and asked for my money. They refused to give it back and asked me to write the exam next year. Only to save my ₹15,000, I wrote the exam and got a rank. Then I pursued law in the same college and got my degree. One day I thought to myself, now that I have a degree, why not quit and start practice? Until then, I never saw the court physically, I had only seen one in the movies. I never knew where the court really existed even in Tirupati. So, perhaps that inspired me. I became a lawyer when I was 35, in 1998..NJ: Tell us about your initial days as an advocate..DSN: I started in the mofussil in Tirupati, in the additional district courts. I was there for four years. Many people, especially the judges then on the bench, were very sympathetic towards me because they thought I was a fool for giving up a good bank job and coming to this profession, which was quite uncertain. Some judicial officers and friends around advised me that since I have taken a leap in life when it comes to my career, why not move to the High Court? In 2002, I shifted over to the High Court and began practicing on my own..NJ: How did judgeship happen?.DSN: I shifted over in 2002. I got a call from the Collegium, one of the members, Justice Goda Raghuram, called me. He said, ‘We would like to consider you. Are you willing?’ Then I said, ‘Sir, I started off my career very late and I've just been picking up and making some money because given my rural background and other things, I can't say that I have that comfort. I just need to think’. Then I went out to my mentor - Justice Jasti Chelameshwar. .I told him, ‘Sir, I don't know which way I should go, but left to myself, I would like to pursue my profession as a lawyer rather than as a judge’. Then he told me, ‘All right you want to make money, and everybody thinks of making money. Imagine if good people don't become judges…Then even our children and our grandchildren will not have any protection in society. Courts are quite essential, good judges are essential. I believe you will make a good judge, don't think of money, accept it’. Then I went back to Justice Raghuram and I told him that I was willing, and that is how I made the cut..NJ: A lot of young lawyers now are a little hesitant to move over to the bench..DSN: They have very good justification. You know how lucrative this profession has become. Now, it has pushed back all other professions - engineering, medical etc. And you make a lot of money. If you have talent, if you are willing to put in long hours in your practice, then success is assured with the opening of the economy, corporatization; opportunities are galore. And then imagine with all your knowledge and experience, you're becoming a judge - what is it that you're getting? See, money is a bad thing. Let me say a judge or even a former judge should not be talking about money, but it is a brutal reality. How will you attract talent when what you get in a month is not even one day's earning of a reasonably successful lawyer? So this is the problem. If you want real talent for the judiciary, I think the system has to change and the position should be more remunerative. These judges don't get a salary because it's not an employment, it's an honour. They get an honorarium and no increments, nothing would be there. Once in five years, there would be revision, a pay. .For example, in the Bombay High Court, on the original side especially, many advocates with immense talent refuse to be judges. Because of the obvious reason. So that's why I think there should be rethinking on this aspect. That's why the young generation may not have much fascination for that..NJ: Was this one of the reasons why you tendered your resignation?.DSN: You touched a raw nerve! It is a difficult question to answer. If you want me to be really, really honest, yes. The financial constraint. More so, when you're working outside the state and your family is left behind in some other state. It is almost impossible to support two families, two establishments of the same family at two different places. And yes, that weighed quite a lot. Being a judge is an all-consuming profession. Around the clock, you are thinking of cases, the fate of the people. And you have been bogged down by your financial constraints, etc. You cannot give your best. So I thought when I could not give my best, I didn't have any place to be there. That is why I felt that I’d better put in my papers. Many journalists called me and asked, ‘Sir, what is the reason? Any political pressure?’ I said, ‘My reasons are quite mundane, absolutely personal, nothing edifying’..NJ: You served as a judge in three High Courts - the erstwhile Hyderabad, Kerala and Bombay. What was your experience of each High Court?.DSN: Had I continued, I would have been putting my name board saying, “so and so, former judge of A to Z High Courts!” I stopped at the third one though. I was at Hyderabad for seven months, and it was my parent Bar. Everybody knew me and vice versa. There was nothing much to notice, because I was born and brought up in that atmosphere, so it became sort of a second nature. But when I went over to Kerala, it was altogether a new experience. So was the case with Bombay as well.Let me tell you about Kerala. It's a very hard-working state when it comes to advocacy. One of the most behaved bars I've ever seen. In the five years I was there, I did not see one single instance of an advocate raising his voice. When it comes to the Indian average, I think for every 10,000 people, 12 cases is the norm. And in Kerala, it is 28 - more than twice the national average when it comes to litigation. They are very much aware of their rights, perhaps and then they keep coming to the courts. That's why the workload is very good. Even the adjudication is in the faster lane, because always, we work to the full complement of the High Court. .One feature I observed there was that they are obsessed with case law. Even a young lawyer, the moment he starts, he would belt out at least a dozen cases. I used to tell them, ‘Please don't limit your capacity by simply relying on a decided case, it kills your creativity. Think originally; only as a prop in the end, if I'm not convinced, then quote the case law.' Otherwise they're very studious, and they worked really hard. Another absolutely brilliant feature about them is that the judiciary there is absolutely honest. I was told in the last 50-60 years, there hasn't been a single allegation of corruption beginning from the magistrate-level to the High Court. The Bombay High Court is a court of high stakes. I expected it could be a mixed bag when it comes to integrity, etc. But believe me, it is one of the most honest High Courts I have seen. And judges, almost all of them, work up to 9 PM in the office. They reach home only beyond that because of the humongous workload there. And when it comes to advocates, you've got a dichotomy there - original side, appellate side. Original side are sort of traditional, Mumbai born and brought up advocates. Appellate side are lawyers from all over the State or within that jurisdiction, because we have got benches in Nagpur, Aurangabad and another one in Goa. That is why it is a diaspora of people from all the other districts coming over there. A very well-behaved bar and very vigilant. But if they perceive that any judge is erratic, they set him right politely, but firmly. .Both were very pleasant and learning experiences. Not to cause any offence, I am saying what I honestly believed about these two High Courts..NJ: Do you think that sudden transfer of judges to different High Courts is considered a punishment?.DSN: I am a victim, if you can call it that. But in hindsight, I say that is the greatest advantage I have had. By working in more than one High Court, getting exposed to different cultures, different legal methods, I enriched myself. But the problem is, when you are transferred, many people look down upon you as if it were a stigma. The perception is that only when you are wrong, you are transferred. So, on that count, yes, I did suffer a little. But now I must say with a sense of pride - I worked in different High Courts and I got the opportunity to better myself..I enriched myself through interactions with all the brothers and sisters on the bench and with advocates of different styles and states. So, it was a blessing in disguise. But after the transfer, yes, I felt devastated. I felt ashamed. At an event, when I came across a retired judge and when I was introduced as “so and so transferred to so and so,” he simply looked at me as said, ‘You started your innings already on the corrupt side’. You cannot escape this inevitability. But now, by and large, that has been waning off..NJ: On your return to private practice, did you feel that your experience on the bench gave you a different perspective as a lawyer?.DSN: Yes. I believe working as a judge did help me perform as a lawyer. Because at least to some extent, you know how a judge thinks. I always tell young lawyers, suppose you see a judge on a point not getting convinced, you feel frustrated. You feel ‘What is this? Such a fundamental thing and this brainless judge doesn't understand. How did he become a judge?’ This is the common reaction of anybody, including me, before becoming a judge.After becoming a judge, I got the perspective on how an advocate thinks, how a judge thinks. There is a very good book on that topic called The Legal Analyst by Ward Franzworth that tells us that an advocate always thinks ex-post. That means whatever has happened in the past, I need a solution for that one; so please provide me with the solution. But a judge thinks ex-ante. That means, I don't mind giving you the solution, but what is the impact of my decision on the society or people similarly placed in the future?For instance, a plane has been hijacked with 450 people on board and the hijackers demand that one person from prison should be released in exchange for all the passengers. Common sense dictates that we better do that, it is a good bargain. It is a 1:450 ratio. This is what we call ex-post thinking. Something has happened. Some solution should be there. But ex-ante thinking is, if I release one man to get 450, it gives leverage for the crime. They feel that crime pays, so they repeat it, because there is something to gain. So that is why all countries in a pact have said no, they should not negotiate. That way, a court also thinks, ‘if I grant a bail, if I grant an order, what is the impact of that decision?’ They think ex-ante. We lawyers, as always, think backward because we want a solution. This perspective gets improved if you are a judge-turned-lawyer..NJ: You are known as a literarian and a bibliophile. So much so, that there are discussions about your passion amongst lawyers. Can you tell us more about it? .DSN: I am obsessed with books. There are certain commentaries of which I buy every edition. And when I am in my office, when I feel bored, I simply go to my book racks and stare at them. It fills my heart. I don't know why and for what reason. Call it an obsession, call it weirdness, or whatever. But somehow, I have a fascination for books that never ends. I was in Kerala, visiting districts on assignments and to deliver lectures etc for the Bar. They are very inquisitive, they like to learn more, so that's why I was going over there. There, the district judge or any other judicial officer who came to meet me would say, ‘Sir, this is the historic place there is a 3,000-4,000 year old temple’. I say ‘my temple is a bookshop. Any bookshop is my temple. Show me, which is the bookshop here’. So that way, wherever I go, UK, Europe, etc, I only tell them, ‘please show me the places where I get good books’. I go out there, spend some time, and buy a book or two. Even as a judge, I always maintained a running account with many book suppliers and I used to pay them whenever I got my salary. One shop owner commented, ‘I have been running this shop for 30 years. I have never seen a judge coming all the way, making a running account and buying books’. At one stage, my books held more value than my whole property put together!.[Watch video interview]