It can be said without any doubt that truth, and only truth, was the bedrock of M.K. Gandhi’s practice of law, writes Anil V. Katarki.
—
AS we celebrate the 154th birth anniversary of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, it would be apt to know what transpired in Gandhiji’s life as a lawyer, an Indian lawyer whose name is still invoked as a symbol of truth all over the world.
Gandhiji’s long sea voyage for England began on September 4, 1888 to study law and become a barrister. He kept terms at the Inner Temple and after nine months of hard study, he cleared all his subjects in one examination.
Gandhiji was called to the Bar on June 10, 1891 and was enrolled in the High Court of England the next day. A day later he began his homeward journey.
In India, Gandhiji started practice as a lawyer first at the High Court of Bombay and a little later in Rajkot, but did not make his mark in the profession.
During his practice of over 20 years, he saw real success as a lawyer, draftsman, negotiator and public worker only in South Africa.
In India, Gandhiji started practice as a lawyer first at the High Court of Bombay and a little later in Rajkot, but did not make his mark in the profession.
While practising in the Mumbai High Court, Gandhiji found the study of Indian law a tedious business. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was a hard nut to crack.
Not so, however, with the Evidence Act. Gandhiji’s first case, that came to him through a tout to whom he steadfastly refused to give commission, almost shattered his confidence.
As Gandhiji himself writes in his autobiography, “This was my debut in the small causes court. I appeared for the defendant and had thus to cross examine the plaintiff’s witnesses.
“I stood up, but my heart sank into my boots. My head was reeling and I felt as though the whole court was doing likewise. I could think of no question to ask. The judge must have laughed, and the vakils no doubt enjoyed the spectacle.
“But I was past seeing anything, I sat down and told the agent that I could not conduct the case, he had better engage Patel and have the fee back from me.”
Also read: Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of India’s common national consciousness
Gandhiji’s second case, which involved drafting a memorial for a Mussalman whose land was confiscated in Porbandar gave Gandhiji enough confidence to consider himself a good draftsman.
After the humiliating courtroom debacle, Gandhiji felt disappointed, left Mumbai and went to Rajkot where he set up his office. Gandhiji got legal work at Rajkot in the form of drafting applications and memorials which brought him in, on an average, ₹300 per month. Most of the applications Gandhiji drafted were on behalf of poor clients.
Gandhiji’s second case, which involved drafting a memorial for a Mussalman whose land was confiscated in Porbandar gave Gandhiji enough confidence to consider himself a good draftsman.
Dada Abdulla’s case in South Africa was the nicest thing to happen to Gandhiji’s practice of law. The case gave Gandhi the best opportunity to hone and sharpen his skills in the profession to emerge as a complete and competent lawyer, negotiator and arbiter.
Dada Abdulla’s was no small case. The suit was for £40,000. The dispute arising out of a string of business transactions was full of intricacies of accounts.
Part of the claim was based on promissory notes and part on the specific performance of promise to deliver promissory notes. The defence was that the promissory notes were fraudulently taken and lacked sufficient consideration.
The case was complex and there were numerous points of facts and law. Abdulla’s case gave Gandhiji the opportunity to get first-hand experience of working with the best counsels and attorneys who were engaged in the case. The crucial task of sifting of facts in support of the case to help the attorney was entrusted to Gandhiji.
Gandhiji put his heart and soul into the case, and studied and revised the facts with the keenest interest, eventually earning the attorney’s praise for his work. While studying Abudlla’s case, Gandhiji realised his power of comprehension and capacity for marshalling evidence.
“When I was making preparation for Dada Abdulla’s case,” writes Gandhiji on his experience in the case in his autobiography, “I had not fully realised this paramount importance of facts. Facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth the law comes to our aid naturally.”
“I saw that the facts of Dada Abdulla’s case made it very strong indeed, and that the law was bound to be on his side. But I also saw that the litigation, if it were persisted in, would ruin the plaintiff and the defendant who were relatives and belonged to the same city.
“No one knew how long the case might go on. Should it be allowed to continue to be fought in court, it might go on indefinitely and to no advantage of either party. Both, therefore, desired an immediate termination of the case if possible.”
Also read: Search for alternative development path: Relevance of Gandhian thought
Later, with persistent efforts and honest intention, Gandhiji was able to get the dispute referred to an arbitration with the consent of both parties and Dada Abdulla won the case before the arbitrator. Defendant Tyeb Sheth found it impossible to pay off the whole sum of about £37,000 pounds and costs as it would have made him bankrupt.
Gandhiji made the best use of his gift of gab and negotiating skills and talked Dada Abdulla into agreeing to allow defendant Tyeb Sheth to pay in moderate instalments.
The rich experience and argumentative skill that Gandhiji gained in the course of his large practice gave him the edge in his battles over the South African and British governments for securing political, economic and social justice for his fellow countrymen.
As Sir Stafford Cripps has remarked: “He was no simple mystic; combined with his religious outlook was his lawyer trained mind, quick and apt in reasoning. He was a formidable opponent in the argument.”
Gandhiji made the best use of his negotiating skills and talked Dada Abdulla into agreeing to allow defendant Tyeb Sheth to pay in moderate instalments.
Gandhiji practised law in South Africa from 1893 till 1912, and it did not take him much time to realise that, as he writes in his autobiography, “The true function of the lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.”
“This lesson,” he writes, “Was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the 20 years of practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases.”
This assumes great relevance in the present day context with increasing emphasis on alternative dispute resolution systems to reduce the burden of backlogs on courts.
Even though the principles of Gandhiji’s practice as a lawyer may come across as too idealistic and far removed from conventional reality to the modern lawyer, they deserve to be given a thought.
Gandhiji built up his practice of law on the firm principles of truth and non-violence. He maintained the highest traditions of the professions and did not swerve by a hair’s breadth from the path of rectitude and honesty and never sold the truth to serve the interest of his clients.
Gandhiji never forgot, as he writes in his autobiography, “That if he was the advocate of individual and retained and remunerated, often inadequately, for his valuable services, yet he had prior and perpetual retainer on behalf of truth and justice.”
It can be said without any doubt that truth, and only truth, was the bedrock of Gandhiji’s practice of law. Magistrates and judges heard carefully what he had to say in a court of law.
Also read: In order to ‘Indianise’ justice delivery systems, we must follow the Gandhian way
Gandhiji’s expertise lay in cross examination and he seldom failed to see through a dishonest witness. Gandhiji had sharp eyes for any dishonest demeanour of a witness and exposed him with pointed questions.
Gandhiji handled his clients very strictly and there are instances where he had retired from cases in open court in the middle of the hearing, having realised that he was being taken for a ride in the matter of safeguarding truth.
When poor people came to Gandhiji, he charged them very reasonable fees, or worked for free. Whether his client won or lost, Gandhiji never expected more or less than his fees. During his entire career as a lawyer, he never issued any demand notice against the client who did not pay the fees due to him, threatening illegal proceedings in case of non-payment.
Gandhiji steadfastly refused to invoke the law to secure payment of his fees, for he thought that his client, if an honest man, would pay him when could, and if dishonest man, would not be made more honest by the use of legal compulsion.
Gandhiji steadfastly refused to invoke the law to secure payment of his fees, for he thought that his client, if an honest man, would pay him when could, and if dishonest man, would not be made more honest by the use of legal compulsion.
Gandhiji’s his role as a lawyer in society has been very forcefully described by the American author James Cavanagh, who in a warm and moving tribute to his work observed: “There is a famous non-lawyer of recent history, who comes close to being, like Lincoln, a transfigured lawyer, a lawyer who has simply grown beyond the usual confines rather than grown away from them, who has enlarged the scope of the lawyer’s functions rather than changed them, who has kept the virtues of the lawyer and only deepened them.
“He loved his country and its people; he respected civil authority even while opposing it; his weapons were non-violence and passive resistance; his aims were moderate and realistic; he was willing to negotiate and to advance step by step; he was humble in manner and took as his symbols the simple handicrafts of his people.
“And true to the negative leadership the lawyer exercises, he became a martyr to his country’s liberty. He was an Indian lawyer named Gandhi.”
