Interview of Justice Rohinton Nariman by The Bombay Bar Association

welcome to the Bombay Bar podcast a show where we share the rich history of the Bombay Bar Association through our members past and present today we have retired Justice rington fali nariman of the Supreme Court of India rington to start at the very beginning as Maria said in The Sound of Music uh I believe your mother was a very strict person as far as your lessons and your your your studies were concerned uh did that sort of serve you well in later life it probably did my mother was strict but uh she never lifted her hand so her way out was to scream at you and then you got used to the screaming so it didn't really bother you too much but yes she was uh constantly at you I mean you had you like a little performing flea she wanted you to be good at everything to be good at uh your sports to be good at music because I went to a piano teacher which happened to be a disaster and uh disaster for you not for the teacher yes for both perhaps and uh now now that I look back probably for both but uh shess she was the driving force in my life in everywh including the fact that I had to go for my priesthood when I was only 12 years old now one of the major upheavals of your life was when as you said your father became the additional solicitor general for India and moved uh the family moved to Delhi uh I mean what was it like to suddenly find yourself leaving your old friends leaving your lovely home here and going off to a new place starting in a sense life all over again it was incredible you move from a little tiny little flat into a huge Bungalow with an even bigger Garden in Delhi that's the first thing that hit you the second thing that hit you was the vast spaces in Delhi in Bombay you went from home to Cathedral School which was probably 2 kilm at Best and not very much Beyond juu was like some massive Excursion trip but in Delhi to have to go from our house to the university took a good 1 hour and must have been something like 20 km away the fact that the you had actual seasons in Delhi unlike Bombay because Summers were very hot Winters were very cold were all things that conduced I think to opening you up as a human being and what is that story about uh your old family retainer when your father became the additional solicitor general you had an old retainer called Babu and what was his comment on your father's elevation his comment was in Gujarati when he was told magistr because to the old the magistrate perhaps was the biggest thing that he had ever seen in the law in Delhi you first went to Shri Ram College of Commerce and then uh to the Delhi law school you had many friends there didn't you who who who stuck by you sort of later I've noticed for example that at all your major functions you have retained contact with your school friends your college friends uh you always invite them over you're in constant touch with them do old friends ships matter a lot to you yes they matter very much I've kept in touch with a number of school friends number of college friends as a matter of fact in my very first week in the shiram College of Commerce I made friends with Arun jetley on the very first day of being in sham College as a matter of fact Arun was looking out for me and he found this little fresher and took him to a particular table right at the end of the canteen and we were locked in conversation I remember for one hour oh and after that we became the closest friends possible so yes within one week in sham College I made some very good friends and I've kept in touch with all of them yeah and then U Harvard Law School happened did you find a vast difference between the way that law was taught in India as uh against what it was in uh in America yes I did but in favor of our Indian education the Delhi law school was a class apart but we had a semester system and we had I think it toted up to 30 subjects at the end of 3 years because every 6 months you gave five papers and we had outstanding teachers I must say so the Delhi law faculty was an excellent faculty it was also unlike all other faculties at that time in that we studied by the case method uhhuh now you didn't for example pick up the the contract act and move from section 1 to section 200 and OD what you did was you picked up one particular section and you had a judgment on it preferably a dissenting opinion as well and you were then made to think for yourself that was the dissenting opinion actually right or was the majority opinion right and that's what made life very interesting getting to Har of course was a different thing ball game allog together we had uh a very young man at the time called Roberto mangaba Angar who taught us jurist Prudence mhm now he didn't teach us the way other teachers taught us there was no Socratic method here he would Pace the floor up and down like a tiger without looking at anybody and let fly you know and then suddenly walk out he was a brilliant Chap and a very nice man and 30 years later he taught my daughter as well because he was 33 when he taught me so he must have been 63 when he taught my daughter so we had all these great teachers then we had uh Professor Mansfield mhm who taught us the very esoteric subject of ancient Hindu law oh so we did Dharma shastra law as well and uh I I remember I written a paper apart from the main paper that I wrote on the difference between Penance and Punishment wow I can't lay my hands on it unfortunately the main paper was done with Aral very famous man who was Kennedy's solicitor general and who was fired as the special Watergate prosecutor and I had done a comparison between how we treated our scheduled casts and tribes as opposed to how they treated the black oh and I remember his cross-examining me on the Indian portion continuously because he wanted to learn and it was a great uh opening of the mind for me to you know to sit with these people and Converse on these subjects you started as a junior like all Juniors do in the profession When you entered the profession I'm sure you must have had your own fears your own apprehensions about what the future would hold your own anxieties and you joined KK venu gopal's chamber and I remember you mentioning that he was very good to his Juniors he paid in those days I mean not every senior pays their junior he paid about 4,000 rupees a month and you said that you were in a tenanted premises and that money went virtually uh into all the rent and of course uh tenanted because you didn't want to stay in the shadow of your illustrious father and wanted to make a distinctive uh career path so those were very different times weren't there very as a matter of of fact after I came back from New York I made the mistake and I used the word mistake advisedly only professionally of coming to Bombay to be away from my father and I was in Bombay for about 3 years but then the Lord has I mean balances everything out so that I made the dearest friends of one of whom is sitting before you and uh our chamber was a great place I mean we had so much fun together chamber number one yeah and we we've all had we are all very very dear and we are all very close I might name some of them it begins with the venerable Ked G Baba and goes on to ibal chagla these are the senior people and of course we had all our lovely seniors beginning with ainash Rana who's 96 today and who is probably the closest to me of all these people uh delightful and lovely human being we we had nanan vas who then became a high court judge we had vatsal chhatrapati who again is very very close to all of us we had sandip takur who unfortunately is just deceased man was again a person who was rounded he he knew a lot about a lot of things he was a great photographer apart from being a great constitutional lawyer we are all these delightful and beautiful people and then of course we had the senior Junior who was always doing better than all of us janak dadas who's again my dearest friend today and who's right right on top of the bar and uh we had Jimmy aasia who is a genius in his own right in fact he should have become some kind of TV mimic or critic or whatever uh so we had a homogeneous lovely chamber consisting of all these people and what of course I could not do professionally I got in abundant measure otherwise you know in the initial years in Bombay in Delhi uh I'm sure like every other Junior you would have faced failures in court in the sense that you argued matters you lost them perhaps uh one the famous case which you did in your very initial years this prakash aminan sha where you appeared for a consti bench five judge bench you lost despite everybody including the judges thinking that you had put up a brilliant performance did these sort of initial failures dishearten you how do how did you react to these failures prakash amian Sha of course was a case which was a challenge to the Bombay town planning act now I had or I thought I had two complete aces up my sleeve one was that the constitution bench Judgment of shanal mangaldas a 69 supreme court judgment which upheld the Bombay town planning Act was expressly stated to have been overruled by a bench of 11 judges 6 months after unfortunately the author of both judgments happened to be the same Justice sha Justice JC sha so JC sha did not explicitly say in the second judgment that he overruled the first it took another 8 years for justice unalia in 1978 in a combination of seven now to say that it was overruled so if it stood overruled it means the Bombay town planning act should have been struck down then I also had another a up my sleeve which was that you cannot have two statutes leading to vastly different compensation in the hands of the same person you cannot pick up a piece of land under the land land acquisition act and pay 100 rupees and then pick up an adjacent piece under the Bombay town planning app which would result only in 50 rupees as acquisition and that was again settled by a bench of seven learned judges Justice sri's judgment in the famous nagpur Improvement trust case in 1973 so armed with these two Aces I went to battle within the first hour Justice AR asked me a question which is something like have you stopped beating your wife and I told him exactly that I said this question is is exactly have you stopped beating your wife if I give you answer X you will say this if I give you answer y you will say this all the judges burst into laughter and as a result I think I got comfortable they got comfortable and the next two days were a breeze because I must have argued for three days before these people and they were so kind and so encouraging even though they kept on at me on on silly little things like where is the compensation provision I remember I pointed out section 67 and they said this can't be it I said that's my point there is no provision they said no that cannot be so anyway the next day they came armed with whatever and they said yes yes we will read this into it read that into it and this kind of thing went on finally when the Judgment came it was Justice wkat Maya judgment he got over my two great points by first dealing with the first point and saying that look Justice utala in 1978 may have said virtually overruled but then we read it for ourselves and we don't say it's overruled even though seven judges is binding on five judges so I was very happy to note there was no way out of my argument I may have lost but there was no way out so he said expressions like virtually overruled we don't accept and we look at it ourselves and we say it's not over all now that's no way to get over the argument but they got over it that way and equally qu the trust case again they said no acquisition under town planning is different because you will get a plot Etc but then that that again didn't deal with what seven judges said that it doesn't matter what your object is specifically your object maybe town planning maybe something else if it results in different amounts being paid for acquisition it is bad in law they did not address that issue equally so I feel that it was a great moral victory for me and shortly after that or around that time uh you were engaged to appear with the great Nani palala in the Mina Mills case and perhaps the only Junior and that was because of Jimmy D chanji I believe what was it like to be appearing with Nani you had seen him I assume in court and you had and but but working with him would have been a different experience absolutely uh as a matter of fact the minurva Mills case was argued in the year just before I left for Harvard I see I finished my LLB and then I was in the Supreme Court for one year after which I went to the aard law school for my llm it was in that year that D chanji came to our house and I'll never forget he said said this is the brief of your life and he said I'm giving it to you because I know you're a bright young boy of course it's being given to you because there's no compensation and you will be assisting the great Nani palala throughout you are the only person assisting him and I will depute chendra swup along with you from my firm and so it happened and uh I remember the very first meeting with palala was a meeting where he was absolutely humble and down to earth first thing he said is I want your thoughts and I was a little boy out of college so I said this is amazing that a man who's a genius like this wants my thoughts anyway I gave him my thoughts he listened very attentively and from the moment he opened his mouth in court you knew that this was a genius of a different order I have never seen an advocate like him now I can tell you the substance of minurva Mills was a challenge to two articles which were left in Indira Gandhi's 42nd Amendment large part was done Away by the 44th Amendment but these two articles somehow remained the first was Article 368 4 and 5 which perpet it to do away with the basic structure Doctrine and which said that no court can get into a constitutional amendment no court can ever strike down a constitutional amendment and the second was Article 31 C which was an article which gave Primacy to all directive principles of State policy over fundamental rights now he formulated his submission on article 31 C thus see how simple lucid and Brilliant it is he said article 31 C turns the constitution on its head sentence one sentence two now how does it turn it on its head whereas fundamental rights are meant to be enforced in courts of law they have been rendered unenforceable and whereas directive principles of State policy are expressly not enforcable in courts of law they have been made enforceable M you see how this strikes you it's brilliant and once something is formulated in this particular way it's almost impossible to answer it except to accept Mr palal as submission he did the same for article 368 4 and 5 and I remember in the course of this huge case which went on for almost 4 weeks Justice unalia was the gulus judge on in this five judgments went on and on about how we had accepted socialism and that Mr kapal was arguing essentially for capitalism and Mr palala heard him out he was very nervous incidentally and he kept on tapping his cheek for that 20 or 25 minute peroration of the judge and at one point but didn't to say has your lordship quite finished so Justice Walia said yes and then Bala Drew himself up and said not even a lunatic and he shouted the word lunatic so much so that everybody got a shock would ever think of crossing the wall that is the Berlin Wall from West Berlin to East Berlin now answers like this are like an atomic explosion which devastates completely what the other side has to say and it was things like this that one learned from him also I mean I mean know it's a little off topic of Mr palala but the Mina Mills case was an important followup to the uh kesavananda bharti case where by a waer thin majority 7 to six the the basic structure Doctrine was laid down and contemporaneously now 5050 years later there was 73 judgment incidentally it's the same day that Sachin Tendulkar was born 24th April but um uh it's an important Doctrine it's been debated at the moment it's been vehemently uh criticized it's been equally passionately defended what would be your thoughts on the basic structure Doctrine in the Indian Democratic poity at the moment I mean how important do you think it is see basic structure is really implied limitations another word for implied that there are no expressed limit in the sense that the amending power is plenary we have four types of amendment in our constitution two of which are reflected in article 368 and it is very difficult to say that if you do not follow or you follow the drill of article 368 then a constitutional amendment can be struck down on substantive as opposed to procedural grounds but that is exactly what the majority in KES bti held what they held was and this was largely based on many writings including an early article by Dr daa Conrad of heidleberg University and Dr daa Conrad spoke of the VMA constitution in Germany Hitler's rise the complete effacement of that Constitution by using that Constitution itself and the safeguards that Germany has post World War II had in its Constitution and he gave some very telling examples to say that suppose you were to say that you followed the procedure for Amendment would the following amendments stand scrutiny by any Court first suppose you were to abolish the Constitution and you were to say bring back monarchy the the king of England suppose you were to a face alog together article 21 which is a personal Liberty article and convert a democratic system of government into a dictatorship in one stroke suppose you were to give the power of amendment no longer to Parliament but to the executive to the president things like this now obv the obvious answer would be that you cannot do these things why can extreme cases but why can you always point out extreme cases to test a proposition why can you not do it you can because there's no there is no Express limitation in that sense but what was read in was implied limitations to stay to say that we in our Preamble have chosen the Democratic way of life and chosen certain values if those values are effaced then nothing remains of the Constitution and if nothing remains then it damages or destroys what was called the basic structure now what people forget today when they re raise a controversy which was long which was buried long ago is that it was buried because of the following immediately after 1973 Mrs Gandhi lost her election uh case in alabad and while the appeal was pending she rushed through the Constitution 39th Amendment Act in essence she said that she was above the law now the 39th Amendment Act was procedurally perfect the 23 necessary 2/3 majority in both houses was there when when the president signed the bill and it was also sent to the states for one half of the states for ratification so what could one possibly say one could only say that it actually damaged the basic structure in in various ways the great thing was that of the five judges who heard it four were minority judges in kesavananda bti who had not accepted the now those four had said there is nothing like a basic structure but they were Bound by the majority holding which was 7 to6 applying the majority holding they were forced to say they were wrong and each one therefore picked up a facet of basic structure to strike down this horrendous Amendment that's point one point two immediately after when Mrs Gandhi lost the elections and the janta government came they act Parliament actually accepted basic structure how did it accept basic structure it said that when an emergency is to be declared in future articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended correct now if they cannot be suspended it only means that they reflect a constitutional value of such importance that even during an emergency that is an armed Insurrection from within or some from or some war from outside cannot possibly a face these Provisions so the second point to be made is that Parliament has now accepted basic structure right third there was a 45 am 45th Amendment bill that was passed by Shanti bushan or tried to be passed by Shanti bushan when he was law Minister that Amendment Bill reflected five values as basic structure and then said that if you want to change them go to the people in referendum that also failed so that's also gone now and most important of all the case in which I appeared minurva Mills minurva Mills struck down 368 four and five which attempted to do away with basic structure as I told you which was the 42nd Amendment the court Struck it down unanimously saying that no basic structure has come to stay these articles are bad right so according to me you are raising today a controversy which doesn't exist right to to move on uh with your with your personal progress at the bar in that sense you became a senior Advocate at a very early age everybody knows uh the Chief Justice lowered the age for at the age of 37 a senior now once you became a senior Advocate obviously the more difficult cases came to you as they say the terminally ill patients would go to a doctor since you are now a senior Advocate now uh in these difficult cases where you for example uh had a matter where you felt that one particular fact or a or a number of facts were destructive of your case how would you approach it as a councel when you were as a senior counsel how would you approach it before a bench my advice would be be honest at all times never try to hide a fact against yourself if there is an answer to that fact certainly put the answer to the judge but never try and hide something against you you will get let the judge on your side if you honestly tell him that look there is this fact but there is also X and Y first bit of advice second there is no case according to me which is so bad that it's unarguable mhm now I will give you an example of almost inarguable cases that I have argued and succeeded one was before Justice rumaal where it became almost inarguable only because a certain Factory had been taken over under the state financials corporations Act of 1951 in up and the person who was involved the owner of that factory went to court now he hid the fact that he had already applied for an injunction in a district court had failed failed in appeal and then abandoned that remedy then he hid this from the RIT court and he went in a r for the same relief so clear suppression finished so two both the single judge and division bench said no question there is suppression out you go almost inarguable case what do you tell the judge now I appeared before Justice rumaal and uh she started off uh very strongly against me but I real realized on some other set of facts so I said no ma'am this is not uh my set of facts they are a lot worse so she looked up and she said lot worse I said yeah you seem to have some other brief before you just please take up item whatever it was she said ah yes this one so I said look I have lost on the ground of Separation there is some explanation that is offered I don't buy it I told her honestly however if you allow me to eat even argue for one minute I will tell you that the state government has behaved extremely arbitrarily in this case she said oh is that so so I immediately diffused the one fact which should have killed me and got into the state governments arbitrariness she heard me out for 10 minutes issued notice and state the entire proceeding then she put it before herself on a Friday after notice matter and I reminded her I started Again by saying this is that case of suppression and then told her how the state government had behaved the state government had no answer and I succeeded now this this shows you also that if you are brutally honest with a judge be straight forward absolutely you tell the judge what it is you even get the judge on your side by saying look I don't buy the explanation and then finally you point out how the other side is wrong you have a good spotting chance of succeeding you you accepted judgeship when chief justice Loa asked you to come over to the bench and at a time when when you were at the peak of your of your career as a council Etc what motivated you to go to the to the other side and of the two which do you find more satisfying see as a council there's only so much you can do you're earning a lot of money but there's not very much you can do which is soul satisfying as a judge you can do a huge amount more and I felt that look a stage had come in my career where I had made more than enough money so it's time to give back it was only for that reason that I accepted judg the seven years as a judge were perhaps the most difficult years of my life because you grind very hard from morning to night the sheer volume is staggering volume of cases that you deal with then of course you are deciding very very important things for the country so you have to be very careful when you decide but I can only say that my stint as a judge was perhaps my defining moment because I'm naturally judgmental and I didn't find it difficult to reach what I thought was the correct conclusion the only thing was I wanted to be 100% certain that I have not gone egregiously wrong and one of the noticeable features of many of your judgments is the fact that you apart from the law and the you know the dry sections and you introduce elements of literature you introduce elements of history in one uh what was it sales tax or wealth tax judgment in Bangalore introduced a story about Winston Church Church's unpaid bill that's right in the Bangalore Club case in another case you introduced the story of Peter the Great of Russia who said one day decreed that all men with beards will have their beards off and you used it as an example of arbitrariness State arbitrariness Etc do you think as a lawyer as a person as a judge having varied interests having having knowledge of various non-legal subjects uh helps a great deal in the law absolutely in fact uh if you read the opinions of some of the Great American judges I hold them in the highest esteem particularly Justice Jackson for his language and of course Justice Holmes for his thoughts you will see exactly what I mean because it is their judgments which are the law as literature they are beautiful to read they make so much sense and philosophically they are very sound so you have everything all in one and I honestly feel that it is very very important for you to get into every facet of life because ultimately what is what is the law it reflects life right you can have a patent case before you now if you do not know anything about chemistry very difficult to appreciate the case and if you know nothing admit you know nothing and begin to learn correct so it is a great learning experience all the time to keep your mind as Nimble as possible and to get into new areas all the time so most lawyers you would say should be encouraged to have a passion for something other than the law absolutely and to to sort of just further this thought a little uh you know the bar has uh provided a number of Judges uh the the pool of the pool of for judges comes essentially from the bar and I me I've been long enough in the profession 47 years now to have known many of them personally and you sort of find that you're sitting one day in the library there's a guy sitting next to you uh the next day he becomes a judge and he's now tasked with momentous making momentous decisions sometimes affecting the country Etc uh do you think that the Le members of the legal profession make the best judges I know there are constitutional require 10 years ET of course there are constitutional requirements to become a high court judge for example you need to be a lawyer of 10 years practice but it's a very interesting question according to me no one set of people should have a monopoly I don't see why any person should not be a judge if he has qualifications which show that number one is intelligent enough to appreciate the law correct and number two is essentially good human being I mean these are the two things that I would look for I always say industry intelligence and integrity absolutely those are the I agree with you completely and left to myself I would love to have a mix of persons from every Walk of Life but off hand can you think of maybe even from American history of a non- lawyer judge doing brilliantly I can tell you something amazing one of the undoubtedly one of the greatest Chief justices of the United States it was ear Warren mhm Earl Warren was only a lawyer not a practicing lawyer mhm he was governor of California for an extremely long time and was a politician he was made chief justice directly because in their system anybody can be picked up and made chief justice he was the quintessential non- lawyer politician who made one of the greatest ever Chief justices really yes because his famous question would always be is this right is something that you are putting to me is it right so he put Justice Above the Law and it is only his political skills by which he was able to have a unanimous decision in Brown versus Board of Education mhm which undid py versus Ferguson the separate but equal Doctrine right and said no black children must integrate with white children it's no good saying that you have a black school which is equally good but they must stay apart I see so it is he who worked on the southern members of the bench because the South were the old plantation owners who were still in favor of the old py versus Ferguson doctr and he had to work around them through dinner di diplomacy and other means and finally even got Justice Stanley read on his side which was something fantastic and which only a politician could do uh you seem to lay a great deal on importance on desense in the law and you yourself being a very independent uh fiercely independent minded person are party to many descents in your view how important are descents uh or a dissenting judgment what role do you think they play uh in um the progression of the law it was best put by Chief Justice Hughes of the US Supreme Court and what you are really doing by a descent is you are appealing to the Future mhm now how do you appeal to the Future you appeal to the Future by pointing out the flaws in the majority judgment mhm and being a denter again you do not have to necessarily compromise to get other people on board so this is a view which is your own real View and if it is strong enough both in terms of reason and Justice at some future point of time that may become the view of the Court Ron you have you have being a religious scholar an acknowledged religious scholar and uh of comparative religions really and uh I know that you are a deeply religious person who tries to uh practice life according to the Zoran Credo which is your faith do you think it's right for a judge to or to what extent would it be right for a judge to bring his own religious beliefs into what he decides I think it is very important first for you to realize that you have taken a very different oath mhm your oath is to the Constitution and the laws H now if the Constitution says something which conflicts with your religious belief the Constitution prevails right it's a very difficult thing but the Constitution usually not because both are moral precepts at the end of the day they are both moral precepts how the Constitution views a particular moral precept may be difficult from what your religion tells you about a moral precept but you must be true to your oath first now you were also the solicitor general of India for about two years before you became a judge and that must have involved a complete how shall I say change in appr approach change in mind here you were as a senior Council lambasting the government in many matters now you're in a position where you got to defend government decisions Etc uh did you find that change very very dramatic did you find it very difficult to adjust to the change circumstances and in that context I want to know what do you think is the role of the law officer is he merely the mouthpiece or the rubber stamp of the government does he have a certain discretion uh in the manner in which he presents government's view Etc first thing that we must realize is that this is one of the pleasure posts in the Constitution pleasure posts when you are attorney general you are at the pleasure of the central government okay in that sense which means the central government must have confidence in you if it loses confidence it can get rid of you instantly right so one must keep that in mind and it is entitled to jus the client May in take up any other person as attorney general because he's lost confidence having said that you have a completely different duty to the court and this goes for any lawyer mhm from the attorney general downwards your duty to the court is Paramount you have a duty to your client you have the duty to the court and whether to conflict the duty to the court comes first I have always believe this as a law officer also also as a law officer but as a lawyer generally and therefore very often as solicitor general I have honestly told the court that look this is what government's position is but since you are asking me my position is X I see I have said that often and I've been appreciated for it now it is important therefore for you to First realize is that you are part of a system where you have to uphold the rule of law it's the single most important thing and you uphold the rule of law best by first serving the court and then serving your clan you know one of the most noticeable features of your U tenure as a judge was the fact that you were very encouraging to well prepared young lawyers was that a conscious decision quite honest I love young people mhm and if I find that there is a sincere young man and he's making an absolutely absurd argument I would never tell him he's making an absurd argument you gently guide him into making the right argument because you see the level of sincerity you see how much is worked you can test these things very easily mhm on the other hand if you find that there is a person who's trying to mislead you or a person who has not worked again if he's young you give a lot of L and you try to bring them on the right path in whichever way right by telling them look up this look up that work a little come back again after you have worked the important point is to be positive at all times because every young person ultimately must attempt to be a good lawyer and every young person also May well be struggling and in difficult circumstances yes there so many other factors so I feel that a little kindness to young people is a very important thing for every judge and that I have always kept in mind and I've always tried consciously therefore to say that look every young man deserves a lot of evening right the same doesn't go for senior Advocates as they found to their cost Often by the way often I have been told that if there's a difficult case leading seniors would say you argu you stand a much better chance to a junior thank you very much uh Mr Justice roon ariman into bracket retired it's been a real pleasure talking to you thank you very much I have never been Mr Justice to you I have only been Ron as Justice nariman rightly said to be a good lawyer or a judge one has to be a multiac Ed person after all what is the law but a reflection of life itself thank you for watching The Bombay Bar Association podcast do subscribe to our channel for more such videos we also have an audio version of the podcast where we delve a little bit deeper feel free to check that out as well it is available on all podcast apps thank you

Channel: Justice Nariman Official Channel

Views: 29,007

Keywords:

Id: NEza2J_0TM8

Length: 44min 46sec (2686 seconds)

Published: Tue Mar 12 2024