There are a number of firsts one can associate with Justice Nariman. His trajectory as a lawyer and Judge has indeed been out of the ordinary. In 1993, no less than the then Chief Justice M N Venkatachaliah amended the rules to designate him as a senior advocate at 37 against mandatory 45. And this was just start of a trailblazing career.

Son of eminent lawyer Fali S Nariman, he would walk in these corridors of the Supreme Court as a one-man army, without the usual paraphernalia of a big lawyer. While every senior lawyer will have array of juniors around him, he had none—and said he never needed any.

In 1996, he appeared for petitioners in K R Lakshmanan vs state of Tamil Nadu, challenging a state law that sought to impose restrictions on horse racing for being a game of chance. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that horse racing was a game of skill, and quashed the state legislation as being unconstitutional. The key takeaway was the declaration that any restriction imposed upon the fundamental rights of citizens must be fair and reasonable, and that unreasonable intrusion into these rights will be ultra vires of the Constitution.

He was later associated with the Vodafone’s $2 billion tax matters; Novartis’s case on protection of its anti-cancer drug; Khodey Distilleries Ltd’s case on use of the word ‘Scot’ on the premier Whisky brand Peter Scot; and Enercon’s case on law of arbitration and private international law.

He was appointed Solicitor General of India in July 2011 and served till February 2013 when he resigned the from post reportedly due to difference of opinion between him and then Union Law Minister, Ashwani Kumar, on certain crucial cases pending before the top court.

In July 2014, he was elevated to the Supreme Court as a judge, becoming only the 5th lawyer in the history to be directly appointed from the bar. The first judgment Justice Nariman wrote within two months of his appointment gave a hint of the path he would follow—a protector of rights and liberty.

As part of a Constitution Bench, Justice Nariman gave those facing death sentencing a chance to argue their review petitions in an open court instead of coming a decision in the privacy of the judges’ chambers. Deciding a batch of petitions involving eight death row convicts in September 2014, the judgment noted that oral hearing was an indispensable facet of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and hence “oral hearing, in death sentence cases, becomes too precious to be parted with”.

In 2015, he authored the judgment that struck down section 66A of the Act, which authorized the judgment of the Information Technology Act, which authorized police to arrest people for social media posts construed “offensive” or “menacing”. He held that section 66A “arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invaded the right, to free speech, right to dissent, right to know, and had a “chilling effect on constitutional mandates”.

He later authorized judgments expediting the trial in the Babri Masjid demolition case; declaring privacy as fundamental right; striking down section 377 of the Indian Penal code, which criminalized homosexuality; holding instant triple Talaq as null and void; banishing adultery as a criminal offence; introducing concept of creamy layer even for SC and ST; and allowing women of all ages to Kerala’s Sabarimala temple.

In his last order, he called out lawmakers for not framing a stricter law to decriminalize politics. “The Indian nation continues to wait, and is losing patience. Cleansing the polluted stream of politics is obviously not one of immediate pressing concerns of the legislative branch of government”, he lamented.

A man of varied interests, Justice Nariman listens to Western Classical music especially Beethoven, Mozart, Wegner, and Verdi. Music and Musical concerts also make him travel across the globe. He likes to immerse himself in books, and has avid interest in history, philosophy, literature and science. (IPA Service)