KOCHI: Justice V R Krishna Iyer used to be the final word in Indian Judiciary. Whenever he had pronounced a verdict it was given due respect by the Judiciary.
His verdicts were always a guidance to the legislatures. His orders, historically important, increased the fame of Indian law and order system. Responsible for humanising law, Iyer was part of a Bench which first considered a public interest litigation and encouraged the public to come up with PILs.
While at Supreme Court, Justice Iyer even converted letters into writ petitions. A letter written by a prisoner alleging cruelty in jail was converted into a writ petition to take action against the prisoners. He has opened the gates of Supreme Court to the less accessible. “The people in prison also have some rights. Prisoners must be considered human beings,” was the order in Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration on December 20, 1979.
Grievance Deposit Boxes
Iyer had directed that Grievance Deposit Boxes be maintained by or under the orders of the district magistrate and the Sessions Judge which will be opened as frequently as is deemed fit and suitable action taken on complaints made. Access to such boxes shall be given to all prisoners.
Iyer held that “in our era of human rights’ consciousness the habeas writ has functional plurality and the constitutional regard for human decency and dignity is tested by this capability.”
Of great significance is the Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand on 29 July, 1980 which, no doubt, opened the gateway to what is presently known as the PIL.
Indira Gandhi case
Another landmark judgment was in Indira Gandhi election case. Iyer imposed a conditional stay on the Allahabad High Court verdict declaring former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha as void. The verdict was passed the very next day after hearing both the sides. He sat at home and finished the judgment at midnight. The judgment copies were distributed free when he was delivering the judgment in the court.
Powers of Cabinet, Prez
In Shamsher Singh vs State Of Punjab on August 23, 1974 case, Iyer interpreted the powers of Cabinet and the President. “The question is: Does our legal political system approximate to the Westminster-style Cabinet Government or contemplate the President and Governor, unlike the British Crown,? Phrased metaphorically, is the Rashtrapati Bhavan or Raj Bhavan - an Indian Buckingham Palace or a half way house between it and the White House? This issue lays bare the basics.”