Top 15 Mohammad Hidayatullah Quotes

He was a Gandhian in ideology, essentially cosmopolitan in outlook, truly Indian in culture, a poet at heart and an activist in thoughts.

In one of his judgments he took the view that the works contracts should be really treated as divisible for the purposes of sales tax has now found acceptance by way of amendment of the relevant constitutional entries and the relevant laws.

He was one of the few judges who could occasionally poke fun at himself. He told me that once he was sitting at a dinner at the Cambridge University where a number of distinguished persons had been invited. Next to him was an elderly gentleman whose identity he did not know. There was some discussion about the theory of relativity and he aired his own views with a certain measure of authority. His neighbour told him that his views were interesting and invited him for a cup of tea in the next two or three days. Later on he found out that he had been talking to the world renowned physicist Sir Arthur Eddington who was reputed as one of the few persons apart from Einstein who understood the theory of relativity. He never picked up the courage to go for that cup of tea and face Sir Arthur Eddington.

As Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, he had the awesome task of dealing with some unruly scenes. He did so with aplomb and finesse, often with a witticism that helped defuse the situation.

As Acting President and Vice President, he walked with Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers, but never lost the common touch. He was always approachable and was kindliness to all. He brought to his chamber work, in his Opinions and in arbitrations, an understanding and humanity, and gave satisfaction to all.

The pages of the Law Reports reflect as much his legal learning and contribution to the development of the law, as his erudition; his judgments were all written with elegance and were often infused with the appropriate literary allusion.

He was a very warm, sincere and sensitive family man and friend.

He was a man of many parts – Law, Literature, Public Affairs, International Affairs and Education. In the field of Law he held all offices which any lawyer can aspire to hold – Government Pleader; Advocate General of C.P. & Berar; Judge of the Nagpur High Court; Chief Justice of the Nagpur, High Court; Judge of the Supreme Court and culminating as the Chief Justice of India. He served as a Judge for 25 years.

He had been an extremely thorough and patient Judge with unremitting industry and keen sense to discover truth and do justice. Law, liberty and justice were upheld with consummate ability and independence by His Lordship. On public controversies, some of his judgments are thought provoking. He disputed the correctness of any attempt to whittle down fundamental rights while making it clear that the right to property was not forever sacrosanct. The distinction between the law and order and the public order, has been brought out succinctly in his reported judgments.

His Judgment in E. M. S. Namboodripad v. T.N. Nambiar (AIR 1970 SC 2015) illustrates his deep study of the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Indeed, in the course of the said judgment, he pointed out how Communists in our country distorted the approach of those eminent men.

In Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 881), he declared the law on the subject as to when a book can be regarded as obscene. The Judgment laid down important tests of obscenity and their application to the well-known book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" written by Lawrence shows his deep insight into law and literature.

In his leading majority judgment in Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 530), popularly known as Privy Purse case, he held that the Order of the President directing that Madhavrao Scindia would cease to be recognised as the Ruler of Gwalior on and with effect from the date of the said order was ultra virus. This declaration of law resulted in restoration of the Privy Purses received by the Rulers and also ensured continuance of their personal privileges.

In his concurring judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643), he held that fundamental rights are outside the amendatory process, if the amendment seeks to abridge or take away any of the rights, and that for abridging or taking away fundamental rights, a constituent body will have to be convoked.

During his long tenure in the Supreme Court, he was a party to and author of a number of landmark judgments.

He was a warm and friendly person who could mix with one and all on even terms.