We all know, Law is a serious pastime and courts solemn edifices. Practitioners and dispensers alike are somber personas who brook no twaddle. The whole system, from the times of Manu and Hammurabi, prefers an assumption that its very existence dictates human existential imperatives. Its domain is weighty. Law, Justice, Society, Human Rights, all need to be subservient, nonetheless, co-exist. For Authorities, it’s an inestimable tool. ‘What, shall King Henry be a pupil still, under the surly Gloucester’s governance?’ Of course, Suffering and Governance are handmaidens. But that’s most necessary, the Chesire Cat would say to Alice! Severity has its virtues. Dura lex, sed lex: “The law is harsh, but it is the law.” Astoundingly, due to Benford’s Law of Controversy, which delineates: – Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available, some bright rays seem to spring from the black cloak.
There are legends and there are legends in the esoteric dominion of law. Some acquired notoriety, others renown! We may have become, at some temporal continuum, deliberate or unintended victims of this human enterprise. Let’s then look back, not in anger, but with empathy, some jovial moments. A ‘short recital’ would suffice that the preponderance of probability is in favour of averment, that lawyers do have a unique sense of humor. And when things tend to go sideways in courts, legal humour provides a much welcome break. A.P Herbert created Haddock, the protagonist who represented Herbert’s point of view and appeared for the first time in Punch Magazine in 1924 as Misleading Cases.In one such case , Rex v Haddock: Is it a Free Country? Haddock jumps off Hammersmith Bridge for a bet and is arrested and charged with numerous offences by the bemused police, including “polluting a watercourse”; his defense is that “there is no law against it” and that he did it “for fun”.
The Lord Chief Justice disagrees, saying “it is a fundamental principle of English law that a person who appears in a police court has done something undesirable”. When questioned on his motive that he did it “for fun”, the judge states “We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament”. In Rex v Haddock: Is a Golfer a Gentleman? The frustrated Mr Haddock, unable to make his golf ball follow its intended trajectory, is heard to utter a stream of swear words, and is summonsed under the Profane Oaths Act 1745 which creates differing penalties for different classes of people, including gentlemen, to whom the highest rate is applied. Haddock argues that while playing golf, he is so bad at it that he no longer can be regarded as a gentleman, and therefore his fine should be lowered. He succeeds with this argument.
There are many such stories. Charles M. Sevilla has also compiled some funny exchanges from justice halls between defendants and plaintiffs, lawyers and witnesses, juries and judges, and released a book of court records called “Disorder in the Court”. One such episode goes like this: ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law. Hon’ble Justice G.S. Patel of the Bombay High Court is renowned for his dry humour and sarcasm, and his decisions frequently display this wit. In a 2016 lawsuit, GoAir Ltd requested that Interglobe Aviation Ltd’s web address, “goindigo.in,” be ordered to drop the prefix “go.” In introducing the case, the Honourable Justice stated that Indigo’s domain name “GoAir” had intellectual property difficulties with Indigo’s prefix Go (though presumably not with the trailing go, which is a little mercy as that might be a demand that Indigo be rechristened Indi).” Go Holding Pvt Ltd added Google India Ltd as a defendant in the lawsuit. Although the Advocate acknowledged that word wasn’t the reason.
There was an instance when an intensely irritated Justice Kuldip Singh enquired from the then Attorney General, G Ramaswamy, during a hearing: ‘You think we are fools?’ Ramaswamy sharply replied, ‘My Lords have put me in a very difficult situation. If I agree, I am in contempt; if I disagree, I commit perjury.’ A lawyer narrates , during his days as a fresher, a woman advocate said something to the Bench. Nothing was audible. The Supreme Court judges wanted to know what she actually uttered. The opposing lawyer stood up and said, ‘My Lord, her melodious voice is not working.’ There was laughter when all could understand that it was the biting winter cold that had choked her voice. The case was adjourned. In the annals of Allahabad High Court there is a funny anecdote of a funny conversation between Walter Mytton Colvin and Charles Ross Alston, both prominent lawyers. Walter was tall, while Charles was short. Walter is said to have jokingly remarked, ‘Charles, I feel like putting you in my pocket.’ Charles shot back, ‘In that case, you shall have more law in your pocket than in your head.’ Justice R.F. Nariman was once hearing a matter and a lawyer cited a string of judgments in support of his case. Justice Nariman, known for his sharp intellect, quipped, ‘Counsel, you’ve provided us with enough reading material for the weekend. Now, could you kindly summarize your arguments?’ This humorous yet polite request lightened the mood in the courtroom and got to the heart of the matter. There is a story about the renowned lawyer Ram Jethmalani. During a court proceeding, he vehemently opposed an adjournment requested by a woman advocate. After much persuasion, Jethmalani finally relented, and the judge quipped, ‘Mr. Jethmalani, she will host dinner for you.’ Jethmalani responded with his signature humour, saying, ‘After dinner, what?’ This exchange brought laughter to the entire courtroom.
Justice Vaidyanathapuram Rama Iyer Krishna Iyer (15 November 1915 – 4 December 2014) was a much revered judge in a league of his own. He pioneered judicial activism. He is also credited with the legal-aid movement. From being a politician – MLA, to a sports enthusiast and a prolific author, he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan in 1999. His sense of humor and deep commitment to the common man was legendary. While we were students’, we were told, in a matter regarding the requirement of Surety mandatory residing in the same place as accused, he had reportedly quipped: – ‘What will a Malayali do in Chandni Chowk?’ In another landmark judgement he is quoted as having said that the definition as given in a particular act was such that even rivers of ink and forests of paper would be in sufficient at arriving at the definition. He had reportedly said that searching for the definition is like looking for a black cat, in a dark room, which is not there. He once said, ‘Litigants are legal patients suffering from injustices seeking healing from their wounds. Would you tell a sufferer in hospital that because he disclosed a certain symptom very late therefore he would be discharged without treatment for the sin of delayed disclosure.?’ Well, I rest my case, on humour in black, with the maxim . Res Ipsa Loquitur. Let the Thing Speak for Itself! (By…. Sidhartha Mukherjee)
