A judge’s retirement from the Madras High Court has rarely garnered attention like it has for Justice K Chandru, who will spend his last day delivering orders in the revered precincts of the court.
Justice Chandru, who is set to retire on Friday, is no ordinary person. He has recorded some stunning statistics in a field where complaints of backlog of cases is constantly heard.
During his seven-year stint donning the black robes on the elevated seat, the workaholic judge has disposed of more than 96,000 cases. This is some achievement, considering the fact that many judges in the country fail to clock even half that figure.
Justice Chandru has, in fact, been a pioneer on several fronts, including his efforts to usher in transparency in the judicial system. A senior lawyer points out that along with Justice K Kannan and D V Shylendra Kumar, who functioned out of the Punjab and Karnataka High Courts, respectively, he was one of the first judges to voluntarily declare his assets, that too during his swearing-in in 2009.
When he took over, Justice Chandru refused to entertain the colonial hangover that persisted in some of the functions of the judiciary. He gave a big no to advocates addressing him as ‘My Lord’.
He declared the carrying of the ceremonial mace in front of judges as unnecessary. Some construe as harsh a message outside his house instructing visitors not to bring in gifts or sweets, but most lawyers swear he was as gentle as anyone could be.
His illustrious career path is even more fascinating.
Born in Srirangam, in March 1951, Justice Chandru had a strong socialist trait right from his school days. As a Student Federation of India (SFI) member, the young Chandru valiantly fought irregularities in his college and was said to have been expelled from the institution in his second year.
Even as a youngster, Chandru’s sympathy for the proletariat class was evident by how he zealously rallied for workers’ rights in a popular tyre manufacturing firm. His vigorous protests, as popular accounts go, earned him the ire of his college management board, which comprised members of the company.
Perhaps this zest to establish the rights of the weaker sections could have prompted him to take admission in the law college. When he enrolled as an advocate in 1976, his choice of a mentor reiterated this commitment to the empowerment of the working class.
Speaking to Express, N G R Prasad, under whom Chandru worked for eight years, recalls how bright he was. “I remember him as a student in law college. He was extremely sharp and stood out from the crowd. He exhibited great potential even then,” Prasad said.
Chandru took special interest in labour laws and was in many ways a keen activist, Prasad adds. This came to the fore in the number of litigations he took pro bono. Prasad recalls two cases in particular that demonstrate Chandru’s nature: “In one case, he fought till the very end and ensured that slum-dwellers were not evicted from near a famous college in the city. He was firm on the opinion that any development should accommodate the poor.
When the Justice Ismail Commission was looking into atrocities in prisons, he represented before the commission.”
Chandru has now set an example by shunning an elaborate farewell, Prasad says. The question of how much embarrassment this could cause to the other judges was not a valid one. “There cannot be two thoughts on this. The entire court should now reflect on what Chandru is doing. This should be done by the full court. Let them develop a code of conduct,” Prasad says adding that, “The process of delivering justice is the only constitutional asset for a judge”.
However, Prasad feels Chandru would have done greater service if he had continued as a lawyer. “People like Chandru are in great demand. He was a grass-root man who took justice to the masses. My opinion is that he should have never taken up the post. I do not know what prompted him to do it,” he says. So, is he happy with what Justice Chandru has achieved in the last seven years? “That is certainly a question for him to answer,” Prasad concludes.