I came across two posts in the Hindu, published in the year 2005, regarding the claim about who actually is responsible for the Kerala Smoking judgment. Reading these posts, I wonder how our judges could do so in public. Read the posts and offer your comments:
Justice Kurup on the judgment on smoking (Published in the Hindu on Tuesday, Nov 29, 2005) Justice K. Narayana Kurup, former Judge of the Kerala High Court, writes: "I saw the news item `Justice Lakshmanan responds' [The Hindu18-11-2005]. Contrary to Mr. Justice Lakshmanan's observation, it is common knowledge that in judicial parlance all over the world when a judgment is written by a particular judge, that judge becomes the author of the judgment in spite of the fact that other judges also constitute the quorum. Learned and eminent judges like John Marshall and Benjamin Cardazo of the U.S., V.R. Krishna Iyer, Chandrachud, Anand and Khalid of India and Lord Denning and Lord Atkin of the U.K. had delivered landmark judgments sitting in court along with co-judges, but these pronouncements have been credited to the judges who wrote and pronounced them. "I have been reading medical subjects seriously for over four decades, subscribing to British Medical Journal even now, besides reading other serious journals such as Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, etc. All these stood me in good stead in drafting the judgment. No wonder my judgment on hazards of smoking has been considered as a treatise on law and medicine which has been lauded by Mr. Justice Lakshmanan himself who wrote after affixing his signature that "Dear KNK J, I have perused your classic judgment and signed the same. You may pronounce it on 12-07-1999 please." "The judgment has always been attributed to me by the laymen and the public alike. I would like to bring to your kind notice that the contention of Mr. Justice Lakshmanan that he reserved the judgment and since he was not able to dictate the judgment and "due to pressure of work entrusted his junior judge to write the judgment" is far from the truth. "Mr. Justice Lakshmanan never reserved the case for judgment. The endorsement on the case file [Writ Petition O.P. No.24160 of 1998-A] will show the following: `Heard and judgment reserved by KNK J on 1-3-1999. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing called junior or senior judge in the High Court. All judges are equal with the exception of the Chief Justice alone who has administrative powers.' "The `factual error' pointed out by Mr. Justice Lakshmanan that the judgment was not ratified by the Supreme Court is again not correct. The Kerala view was accepted by the SC by a subsequent decision in Murali S. Deora Vs. Union of India [AIR 2002 SC 40]. Regarding the expression, "While chairing the Bench..." in the press report, it may have been an inadvertent slip of the reporter, which does not make much of a difference to the substance of the report." Justice Lakshmanan responds CHENNAI: With reference to the news report "Lifetime achievement award for Kurup," published in these columns on November 8, Justice AR. Lakshmanan, Judge, Supreme Court of India, writes: "Your Staff Reporter while referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court of July 12, 1999 against smoking in public places has committed two errors. The news item reads as follows: `His landmark judgment on July 12, 1999 against smoking in public places, while chairing a Bench in the Kerala High Court, probably set the tone for judicial activism in the country. The judgment was later ratified by the Supreme Court and is treated as a treatise on law and medicine.' "The news item says that it is his [Justice K. Narayana Kurup's] landmark judgment. The new item further says that while chairing the Bench in the Kerala High Court, the landmark judgment was delivered. These statements are also factually incorrect. I was the acting Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court at the relevant point of time. A public interest ligitation was heard by our Bench comprising me as acting Chief Justice and Justice K. Narayana Kurup, against smoking in public places. I, as the senior judge, presided over the Bench. Due to pressure of work as acting Chief Justice both on the administrative side and on the judicial side though I reserved the judgment, was not able to dictate the same. Thereupon I entrusted the matter to my junior colleague for writing on behalf of the Bench. The judgment is not his judgment. It was delivered by a Division Bench. The Bench was chaired by me and not by Justice K. Narayana Kurup as stated in your report. "There is one more factual error. The news item says the judgment was later ratified by the Supreme Court and treated as a treatise on law and medicine. To my knowledge, a special leave petition filed by a cigarette manufacturing company was later withdrawn by them. No judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on merits. "I am a regular reader of The Hindu newspaper for the last 50 years. The Hindu is known for its correct and prompt reporting. I, therefore, request you to clarify the position so that the readers will come to know the truth."
