Kalyan Singh told an ‘utter lie’: K.K. Venugopal on Babri Masjid case

When did you decide to name your book, The Accidental Lawyer?

The question of my entering the legal profession by accident took place when I originally abandoned B.Sc. Physics and decided that I will start entering the legal profession. That is how I called myself an accidental lawyer from the very beginning.

Your father, Constitutional luminary and senior advocate MK Nambyar, has been a great influence on you. Can you tell us more about him - you said there was no overt display of affection from him, but you always felt his love for you.

The relationship between father and son or children in the 1930s, 40s and 50s was wholly different from the relationship between father and son now. Now, this hugging business started only after I came to Delhi. Before that, it was not there at all. There was love, but there was a respectful distance at the same time. I was in awe of my father.

There is an anecdote of you as a boy scout in which you had to display courage by climbing down a rope from a house on fire. Another instance of you swimming at much risk to your life. Then your encounter with an elephant in Africa. Why did you take such risks? 

I don’t think twice before taking a risk. If I sat back and thought, then of course I won’t take a risk. 

You have an enviable collection of art and an antiquarian library. Can you tell us something about this passion for collection? What art do you collect? Is there any period or particular school which you prefer?

I was always a collector, collector of art, collector of paintings, collector of handicrafts. If I like a painting, I would buy it. But I would, of course, keep an eye on the actor and the prospects of the painting improving in value over the course of the years.

Are you still into comics and Western novels?

I started with comics as a child. When I was about 10, I started reading Western comics. Today I have a collection of Louis L’Amour’s 60 books, practically all the books he wrote, all of them within 120 pages.  

The book details your travel, your wanderlust. In a chapter about your travels to Tibet, you refer to a spiritual experience which was described as an “all-enveloping peace in the mind”. How does travel help?

I don’t think I thought of it on that basis, whether it’s going to help me or anything like that. But this was actually an experience, and I think everyone should go through this experience. And today, of course, the whole thing has become so easy, because you can go by vehicle, you can go by helicopter, and we had to trek 15 days along narrow... cut tracks on the side of the mountains with a drop of 200 feet and a river flowing 200 feet below.

Your wife, who was your constant travel companion, departed at a relatively young age. How were the years after that, with three young children growing up, your profession, and you have been alone.

Strangely enough, instead of my looking after them, in her last days, my wife sent for all three of them and told them ‘your father is going to feel my absence very much. Therefore, you have to behave yourself and look after him’... I have never felt lonely.

As a lawyer, you have represented several Chief Ministers, States, and top politicians. Is it more demanding to appear for them?

For me, it made no difference whether a person was a Chief Minister or any other client. They had to come to me. I would never go and see a Chief Minister.

There is a heart-rending chapter in your book about the horrors of the Delhi riots, which you also witnessed. What was the trigger for these riots?

So far as these Sikh riots were concerned, that was a command from the political masters.

You have said objectivity is a plus for lawyers. We now see lawyers coming to court with cases with communal overtones. Has objectivity reduced in recent years?

It depends on the government. It is the duty of the government to ensure that in a secular state like India, there is no difference between one religious community and another, or between one caste and another. They have to ensure that there is no discrimination or persecution. And if that is not done, we cannot hold our heads high.

In the chapter ‘Reaping the Whirlwind’ on the Babri Masjid demolition, you write of telling Justice Venkatachaliah and other judges, “I hang my head in shame. As swiftly as this demolition has taken place, let the Union of India, the Central government, put the bricks back so that the next day the Masjid would stand whole and untouched.” You were Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh’s lawyer in the Supreme Court.

I thought they were the right words to say. Why? Because Kalyan Singh had said that he would see to it that no demolition would take place. That there was a bridge, and the police would stop them at this bridge if they tried to enter. But no efforts were made to stop [the kar sevaks] from entering. They came and they demolished… I thought if the bricks were put back the very same night, there would be no hue and cry. But the Attorney General [Milon K. Banerjee] said I was trying to do something “very, very funny”. I suppose the real reason was Congress thought they would lose a votebank if the bricks were put back… Kalyan Singh told an utter lie.

Did you feel a sense of betrayal? That Kalyan Singh knew more than what he told you and made you assure the court that this would not happen?

Not only that, he filed an affidavit which I handed over [to the court]. Milan [Banerjee, the Attorney General] handed over an intelligence report, which said that the kar sevaks had been trained over a long period of time. They were ready to come and demolish. The demolition will take place. But Justice Venkatachaliah had to accept Kalyan Singh’s word that would not be done. And this is the result. Kalyan Singh was prepared to mislead the court and mislead me.

Do you feel that the Supreme Court Collegium is losing its importance? It is hardly using its veto power. A recent Collegium resolution said it had changed its mind about transferring a High Court judge to a particular High Court because the government did not want him there.

If you look at the original Article 124, it was the government’s prerogative to decide who would be appointed and where. Therefore, at least let us proceed on the basis that this was only keeping in mind the fact that the government under the original Constitution was the one who was entitled to make appointments. Therefore, this would still be something consistent with what the government wanted and what the consultee, that is, what the Collegium, should agree to.

Judges say this or that is not in national interest. But judges are supposed to interpret the law, the Constitution. Should they speak for the national interest?

A law will be struck down if it is not in public interest. National interest is an aspect of public interest.

The Supreme Court has said in recent judgments that we should move towards a casteless society. Do you agree?

I agree fully. What is wrong with this country is caste. Everything. I mean, if you marry out of your caste, you kill the bride or bridegroom. Caste is something which is now shaking the entire country… But then you can take it from me. I cannot foresee a period when caste will disappear.

Do you feel there is less recognition for women now in the legal profession? We have only one woman judge in the Supreme Court.

There are so many excellent women lawyers and judges in the high courts who can be directly elevated to the Supreme Court. Why do you elevate the male judges wholesale?