Adarsh Kumar
Justice Appajee Vardarajan, the former Supreme Court Judge was born in 1920 and was the first Dalit Judge to reach the Apex Court. He hailed from Vellore, Tamil Nadu. He started his professional life as an advocate in Madras High Court and went to become the first Supreme Court Judge in 1980, rising from a schedule caste. He served for 5 years in the Apex Court and retired in 1985, during which he gave many landmark judgments. After retirement, he worked with Prakash Ambedkar for the implementation of reservation and prevention of violence against Dalits. He died in 2009.
Background and Education
Rd. Justice Vardarajan was born on 17th August 1920 in a Dalit family at Jolarpettai, Vellore, Madras. He did his matriculation for Municipal High School at Tirupattur and intermediate from Voorhees College (Vellore). During his adulthood, he witnessed several Dalit movements inspired by Iyothee Thass, a Dalit activist, and inspiration for him as well. He did his Bachelors in Loyola College, Chennai, and did LLB from Dr. Ambedkar Govt. Law College, Madras.
Unlike many of the Supreme Court Justices, he was not from a prosperous family, he was the first graduate in his family.
Professional Life
He completed his LLB and afterward got himself enrolled as a lawyer in 1944 and started practicing in Madras High Court and practiced there for almost half a decade. He became a part of the judiciary from 1949.He started as a district munsif and was consequently promoted to higher positions like sub-court Judge, district judge, and then sessions judge. He also served as a judge in labor courts and tribunals. He was appointed as an additional judge in Madras High Court in 1973 and a permanent judge in 1974. He served for 6 years in the High Court of Madras till 1980.
Then in 1980, he was elevated as a Supreme Court Judge, to become the first Dalit judge in the Apex court. He delivered many judgements which are referred to many a time by today’s judges as well as law practitioners. Then he retired in 1985 after serving 5 years.
After retirement, he joined the moment for the upliftment of the Dalits and implementing reservations for them. He worked with Prakash Ambedkar in the movement for the rights of Dalits.
Major Judgements
During his tenure at the Apex Court, he gave his contribution in many remarkable judgements, which made consequent changes and interpretations in existing domestic laws. Few of them are discussed here:
Mithu vs State of Punjab (1983)
In this case, Justice A. Vardarajan was on the bench along with Justice Y.V. Chandrachud and three other judges. The constitutionality of section 303 of the IPC was challenged on the grounds of violation of article 21. Section 303 prescribes an “unchallenged” death sentence for an offense of murder committed by a convict under life imprisonment. Section 303 takes away the judicial discretion in awarding the sentence making section 235(2) and section 354(3) of CrPC pointless. Court held it irrational as judicial discretion may not be an exercise to decide the fate of the accused like in other sections of IPC. Unlike section 302 or others, in 303, the court has no choice but to give the death penalty.
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Others (1985)
In this case, Justice Vardarajan was along with two more judges on the bench. The Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the concept of ‘Streedhan’ and held a married woman as the absolute owner of her Streedhan property and even if Streedhan is in the custody of her husband or in-laws, they are mere trustees and are obliged to return when demanded. Such property can be gifted or willed away without the consent of the husband. The Streedhan can’t be used to payoff the debts taken by the husband and that this property can’t be proceeded against in the execution of a husband.
Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984)
In this case, the Burden of proof and Circumstantial evidence from evidence law was dealt with. The treatment of circumstantial evidence if are inconclusive, the burden of proving. The court laid down a 5-pointed rule to examine circumstantial evidence in general. The court held that the onus of proving the guilt rest on the prosecution. If a situation offers two possible explanations, then one should not be attributed to the accused to prove his innocence.
Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.(1985)
In this case, Justice Vardarajan was on the bench with the other four judges to determine the issues related to estoppels against fundamental rights and the scope of the right to life under Article 21. The court held that the constitution does not provide for an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty, it must be following the procedure established by law. But, on the other hand, the right to livelihood is an equally important aspect of this right because no one can live without means of subsistence. So, it would be pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life.
Conclusion
As Indian society is pluralistic in nature, caste and religion still play an essential part in the construction of socio-political hierarchy. Judiciary is also not untouched by the biasness based on castes and religion, which can be assumed based on a lower conviction rate of crimes against members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. All these psychological stereotypes were broken by the appointment of the first Dalit Judge in the Supreme Court. Justice Appajee Vardarajan was the first such person to be appointed in the Apex court. Hailing from a weaker section of the society and a relatively less prosperous family, to become a part of the Supreme Court in India in itself is very inspiring for the law practitioner and students. His journey proves that even though the prevailing biasness and prejudices are hurdles for an economically or socially backward aspirant, but it’s not impossible or near to it to make way for themselves.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by the website owner.