The Nawab of Baitar noticed Mahesh Kapoor as he came into court a little into the afternoon session; though they sat on different sides of the aisle, they acknowledged each other with an unspoken salutation.
The Nawab Sahib’s heart was full. He had listened with enormous pride and happiness to his son’s speech. He could not help thinking once more how Firoz had inherited so many of the finer features of his mother. And she too had sometimes been most nervous when she was most forceful. The attentiveness of the judges to the young man’s arguments were savoured even more by his father than by himself, for he was too busy parrying their questions to allow himself the pleasure of enjoying them.
Even his senior could not have done better, thought the Nawab Sahib. He wondered what the next day’s report in the Brahmpur Chronicle would carry of Firoz’s arguments. He even somewhat whimsically imagined the great Cicero appearing in the Brahmpur High Court and commending his son’s advocacy.
But will it do much good in the end? – this thought struck him again and again in the middle of his happiness. When a government is determined to get its way it usually does so by one means or another. And history is against our class. He looked over to where the Raja and Rajkumar of Marh were sitting. I suppose that if it were merely our class it would not matter, he continued to himself. .But it is everyone else besides. He found his thoughts turning not only to his retainers and dependants but to the musicians he used to listen to in his own youth, the poets he used to patronize, and to Saeeda Bai.
And he looked at Firoz with renewed concern.
11.6
DAILY the crowds in court lessened until finally hardly anyone other than the press, the lawyers, and a few of the litigants could be seen.
Whether the Nawab Sahib and his class had or did not have history on their side, whether the Law propelled Society or Society the Law, whether the patronage of poetry counter-balanced the torments of the tenantry, such questions of great pitch and moment lay outside the immediate business of the five men in whose hands rested the fate of this case. Their concerns were concentrated on Articles 14, 31(2), and 31(4) of the Constitution of India, and they were grilling the amiable Mr Shastri about his view of these articles and of the statute under challenge.
The Chief Justice was looking through his copy of the Constitution, and scanning for the fourth time the words of Articles 14 and 31.
The other judges (Mr Justice Maheshwari excepted) had been asking some questions of the Advocate-General which the Chief Justice had been following with only half an ear. The Raja of Marh, who seemed to enjoy the atmosphere of the courtroom, was listening with no ear at all. He was present in court, but once more not conscious of the fact. His son, the Rajkumar, did not dare to nudge him awake when he slumped forward.
The questions from the bench spread over the entire field of the immediate argument.
‘Mr Advocate-General, what is your response to the argument of Mr Bannerji that the purpose of the Zamindari Act is not a public purpose but the policy of the political party which for the time being is holding office in the state?’
‘Could you attempt, Mr Advocate-General, to reconcile these various American authorities? I mean, on the question of public purpose rather than the equal protection of the laws.’
‘Mr Advocate-General, are you seriously asking us to believe that “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution” are the controlling words of Article 31 clause 4 and that any act under the aegis of that article is therefore unchallengable under Article 14 or any other article of that Constitution? Surely it only protects the act from challenge on grounds contained in Article 31 clause 2.’
‘Mr Advocate-General, what about Yick Wo versus Hopkins with respect to Article 14? Or the passage in Willis approved by Justice Fazl Ali in a recent Supreme Court decision as being a correct exposition of the principles underlying Article 14? – “The guarantee of the equal protection of the laws means the protection of equal laws.” And so on. Learned counsel for the applicants made much of that, and I do not see how you can counter their contention.’
Several reporters and even lawyers in the courtroom had the strong sense that the case was beginning to go against the government.
The Advocate-General appeared unconscious of this. He continued, unexcitedly, to weigh his words, even his syllables, with such care that he emitted them at only about a third of the rate of G.N. Bannerji.
His answer to the first question was: ‘Di-rec-tive Prin-ci-ples, my Lords.’ There was a long pause, and then he listed the relevant articles one by one. This was followed by a shorter pause, then the statement: ‘Thus your Lordships see it is in Con-sti-tu-tion itself and not party policy merely.’