I just finished reading Justice H.R.Khanna’s autobiography, Neither Roses Nor Thorns. Everyone is aware of his solitary dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he inherited this courage of conviction from his father, Sarv Dayal Khanna. As he records:
A couple of years after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Lord Reading was appointed the Viceroy of India. Soon after taking over his new assignment, he came to Punjab. The Punjab Government was very keen that he should be presented a welcome address by the Amritsar Municipal Committee (AMC). Pressure was put on members to support the motion carrying the welcome address to be passed unanimously by the committee. The AMC consisted of 30 members including its President, Gopal Das Bhandari. Twenty-nine Members supported the resolution to present the welcome address to the Viceroy. The Government was keen to convey the message that the massacre left no scar and the bitterness had been erased from people’s mind. But one member whom the Government could not win over despite all pressures was Sarv Dayal Khanna. He opposed the resolution tooth and nail and when it was carried out, he was the only member who did not participate in the function for the presentation of welcome address to the Viceroy.
If A.D.M.Jabalpur case is one dissent for which Justice Khanna would be ever remembered, his judgment in the Keshavananda Bharati case is perhaps one on which there has been no clarity yet. Could his judgment in the Keshavananda Bharati case be called again as a “solitary dissent”, considering that he stood somewhere between the “majority” six and the “minority” six. After reading T.R.Andhyarujina’s revealing article in The Hindu last year, I wondered whether Justice Khanna knew of this criticism during his lifetime, before his faculties failed him during the last few years. Even as he was eager to “clarify” his Keshavananda Bharati Judgment in the Indira Gandhi case subsequently (on whether fundamental rights were part of the basic structure – in the former he said they were not part, while in the latter he clarified that he did mean they were part), why did he allow the slur that he contradicted his own judgment in the Keshavananda case go entirely unchallenged?
Join the discussion