No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Centenary of HM Seervai – Doyen of Indian constitutional law – an Australian appreciation*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Abstract
For much of the second half of the twentieth century, HM Seervai was a leading advocate of the Bombay High Court. He argued some of the most important constitutional cases decided by the Supreme Court of India and eventually resolved in 1970 to write his Constitutional Law of India. It became the leading text on Indian constitutional law. It is still in widespread use. Many instances of recent citations are quoted. But it is not the usual commentary on the text of the Indian constitutional and case law. Instead, the book contains a running discussion on the shifts in direction as well as sharp criticisms where Seervai felt that the courts had strayed from correct constitutional doctrine. Seervai died in 1996 as the fourth edition was just completed. In this paper, originally given as a lecture in Mumbai in 2007 on the centenary of Seervai’s birth, the author questions Seervai’s testamentary prohibition on posthumous editions of his text. He urges that a new edition should be produced to keep Seervai’s legacy alive not only in India but in other constitutional democracies where Indian judicial authority is increasingly cited.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2007
Footnotes
**
The author acknowledges the assistance of Adam Sharpe, legal research officer in the Library of the High Court of Australia.
*
HM Seervai Centenary Lecture, delivered at the Bombay High Court, Mumbai, India.
References
Notes
1. Tagore, R. Gitanjali (London: Macmillan, 2000)Google ScholarPubMed (1st edn, 1913) poem 3.
2. Nariman, F. in Seervai, FH (ed) Evoking HM Seervai – Jurist and Authority on the Indian Constitution (New Delhi: Universal, 2005)Google Scholar (Evoking) p 48 at p 50.
3. TR Andhyarujinain in Evoking p 20 at p 23.
4. Ibid, at p 24 referring to RMD Charmarbaugwala v State of Bombay (1957) SCR 930, AIR 1957 SC 699.
5. Evoking; Iyer, V (ed) Constitutional Perspectives – Essays in Honour and Memory of HM Seervai (New Delhi: Universal, 2001).Google Scholar
6. FH Seervai in Evoking p 95 at p 101.
7. AB Divan ‘HM Seervai: random memories and recollections’ in Evoking p 53 at p 58.
8. Justice RS Pathak in ibid, p 14 at p 15.
9. Justice S Manohar in ibid, p 17 at p 19.
10. TR Andhyarujina in ibid, p 20 at p 21.
11. Ibid, p 29.
12. AM Setalvad ‘HM Seervai’ in ibid, p 41 at p 43.
13. SJ Sorabjee ‘Homi Seervai – a personal tribute’ in ibid, p 45 at p 45.
14. Ibid, p 46.
15. Ibid, p 46. His views on Justice PN Bhagwati were a case in point.
16. FS Nariman ‘Last of the serjeants’ in ibid, p 48 at p 52.
17. IM Chagla ‘Full court reference’ (address as President of the Bombay Bar Association) in ibid, p 7 at p 8.
18. AH Desai ‘Some reminiscences’ in ibid, p 64 at p 66.
19. Lord Mackay ‘Memories of HM Seervai’ in ibid, p 16 at p 17.
20. Kirby, MD Constitutional law: Indian and Australian analogues’ in Iyer, V (ed) Essays in Honour and Memory of HM Seervai (Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2001)Google Scholar p 166; , Supreme Court Golden Jubilee Issue 79; MD Kirby ‘A neglected transnational legal relationship: a plan of action for Australia’[1997] Australian International Law Journal 17.
21. Wynes, WA Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers in Australia (Sydney: Law Book Co, 5th edn, 1976).Google Scholar
22. Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1996) 190 CLR 513 at 659 (fn 501); Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 644 para [106] (fn 173); Egan v Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424 at 493 para [133] (fn 355).
23. Thus Murphy J quoted from it in The Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 at 165.
24. Preface to the first edition, republished in HM Seervai Constitutional Law of India p xxiii.
25. (1961) 1 SCR 497.
26. Sir David Williams’s review appears in [1985] Cambridge Law Journal 149.
27. See, eg, G Wilson [1967] Cambridge Law Journal 258; A Gledhill (1968) 84 Law Quarterly Review 279.
28. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, preface to the first edition, p xxiv.
29. Ibid, preface to the first edition, p xxiv.
30. News Limited v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2003) 215 CLR 563 at 580 para [42] per McHugh J.
31. Cf Lawrence v Texas 539 US 558 at 578–579 (2003); Grain Pool of Western Australia v The Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479 at 552 para [111].
32. Eg Lawrence v Texas, above n 31, at 598.
33. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, preface to the fourth edition, p xvii.
34. Ibid, preface to the fourth edition, p xxi.
35. [1993] AC 593; see Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, vol 2, p liv.
36. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, preface to the first edition, p xxv.
37. Ibid, preface to the first edition, p xxvi.
38. (1970) 3 SCR 530.
39. (1967) 2 SCR 762.
40. V Iyer ‘My recollections of Homi Seervai’ in Evoking p 68 at p 68.
41. M Azad, cited in Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, fourth edition, p 115.
42. (1951) 83 CLR 1 at 148–149.
43. (1948) 76 CLR 1.
44. Melbourne Corporation v The Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31 at 82 per Dixon J.
45. (1951) 83 CLR 1 at 193; cf Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 at 513–514 paras [103]–[104].
46. Austin, G. Working a Democratic Constitution: the Indian Experience (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999) p 498.Google Scholar‘Parliamentary supremacy’ is a more accurate expression; but even then Parliament is supreme, subject to the law as declared by the courts.
47. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, preface to the first edition, republished in the fourth edition, vol 1, p xxiii.
48. The words ‘Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic’ were inserted by the Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution (1976), s 2.
49. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, fourth edition, vol 1, p 951.
50. His comment in vol 1, p 610 (para 9.2.79) on Justice Krishna Iyer’s reasons in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh v Union of India (1981) 2 SCR 185 is an example. See also in vol 1, p 2240 his comment on Justice PN Bhagwati; cf SJ Sorabjee in Evoking p 45 at p 46.
51. As Sir David Williams concluded [1985] Cambridge Law Journal 149.
52. See Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, appendix to vol 2 in fourth edition, p 2235; cf Austin, above n 46, pp 293ff.
53. [1942] AC 206 in Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, p 2230.
54. TR Andhyarujina in Evoking p 20 at pp 27ff.
55. 539 US 558 at 578–579 (2003).
56. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, vol 3 of the fourth edition, pp 2306 and 2312, applying observations of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in James v The Commonwealth [1936] AC 578; cf Gwyer CJ in Central Provinces Case [1939] FCR 18 at 37.
57. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, fourth edition, vol 3, p 2318, applying Madras v Boddu Paidanna [1942] FCR 90 at 105 per Gwyer CJ.
58. [2000] 1 SCR 480.
59. [1965] 1 SCR 375, AIR (1965) SC 1039.
60. [2000] 3 SCR 301 at 389.
61. [2002] 3 SCR 100.
62. [2002] Supp 5 SCR 186 at 208.
63. [2003] 2 SCR 781 at 796–797.
64. [2004] 1 SCR 564 at 642, 657, 689 and 664.
65. [2004] 2 SCR 1019 at 1052D.
66. (2004) 12 SCC 634 at para [22].
67. AIR 2005 SC 1103 at 1115–1116 para [40].
68. AIR 2005 SC 2026 at 2035 para [11].
69. AIR 2005 SC 3172 at 3177 para [22].
70. AIR 2006 SC 980 at 1035–1036 para [168].
71. AIR 2006 SC 2382 at 2390 para [26].
72. 2006(7) SCALE 330 at 3314 para [21].
73. Appeal (Civil) 3981 at 2006 per GP Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari JJ, 8 September 2006 at para [20].
74. (2006) 8 SCC 212 at 270 at para [106]. SH Kapadia, CK Thakker and PK Balasubramanyan JJ, 19 October 2006 at para [70].
75. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, fourth edition, p 546.
76. British Coal Corporation v The King [1935] AC 500 at 520 (PC); Dicey, AV The Law of the Constitution (London: Macmillan, 10th edn, 1959) p 88;Google Scholar introduction by ECS Wade, p xlix.
77. FW Maitland quoted in ‘Preface’ to Maitland, FW The Constitutional History of England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950)Google Scholar p v (1st edn, 1909); Maitland died in 1906. See
78. HAL Fisher ‘Preface’ in Maitland, above n 77, p v at p vii. There are many other instances. When in 2003 Professor Sir John Smith CBE QC died, there was a danger that his classic text English Criminal Law (then in its tenth edition) would be the last. However, Professor David Ormerod of the University of Leeds has taken on the role of editor and produced an eleventh edition in 2007 aspiring ‘to remain true to Sir John Smith’s ideals’. The new edition has been acclaimed.
79. Wynes, above n 21, publishers note, p vii.
80. (2006) 81 ALJR 34.
81. Cf Copland, I. and Rickard, R. (eds) Federalism: Comparative Perspectives From India and Australia (New Delhi: Manohar, 1999)Google Scholar. See in particular the articles by HP Lee (‘Emergency powers in Australian and Indian federalism’); JA Thomson (‘Australian and Indian state constitutional law: some comparative perspectives’); and G Parthasarathy (‘Federalism and constitutional processes’).
82. Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 229 ALR 223 at 257ff para [127].
83. Seervai Constitutional Law, above n 24, appendix, vol 2, pp 2235ff; vol 3, pp 2717–2719 and 2761.
84. See also ibid, preface to the second edition; fourth edition, vol 1, p vii and Chandramathi, MV Overview of appointment of judges’ in Rao, G Manoher Constitutional Development Through Judicial Process (Hyderabad: Asia Law House, 2006) p 228.Google Scholar
85. See, eg, Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562 at 589 para [62]; cf 617 para [152]; and QAAH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs (2006) 231 ALR 340.
86. MD Kirby ‘International law – the impact on national constitutions’ (Grotius Lecture) (2006) 21 American University International Law Review 327.
87. Tagore, above n 1, poem 37.