Fali S Nariman: 9 notable cases of the late jurist

Notable Cases

1. The Second Judges Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India

• He played a pivotal role in challenging a Supreme Court ruling that granted the central government final authority in matters regarding judicial appointments and transfers.
• He argued that the consultation process between the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the President must be more than mere advice-seeking to ensure judicial independence.
• His efforts led to the establishment of the Supreme Court Collegium in 1993, ensuring binding recommendations for appointment of judges to the apex court and High Courts.

2. The Third Judges Case

• The President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution asked for clarification on the procedure for appointment of judges following the second judges case.
• He clarified that the CJI must consult other judges of the Supreme Court before making any recommendations for judicial appointments.
• This case also expanded the size of the Supreme Court Collegium to five senior most judges from the existing three

3. National Judicial Appointments Commission case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India

• He continued his advocacy for judicial independence during the challenge against the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (NJAC).
  • The NJAC amended the Constitution to insert Article 124A which created a six-person commission for judicial appointments.
  • This commission would comprise
    • The Chief Justice of India
    • Two other senior SC Judges
    • The Union Minister of Law and Justice
    • Two “eminent persons” who would be nominated by a committee comprising the CJI
    • The Prime Minister
    • The Leader of Opposition.
• He asserted that it would compromise judicial independence by involving the central government and legislature in judicial appointments.
• The Supreme Court agreed with his stance and struck down the NJAC in 2015, reaffirming the collegium system.

4. Parliament cannot curtail fundamental rights: I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

• He intervened in the I.C. Golak Nath case (1967), arguing against Parliament's power to curtail fundamental rights through constitutional amendments.
• His efforts contributed to the court's ruling that Parliament cannot amend articles related to fundamental rights, safeguarding the core principles of the Constitution.

5. Bhopal gas tragedy: Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989)

• In 1984, in the Bhopal gas tragedy, 42 tons of toxic chemicals leaked from a pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide India Limited.
• This resulted in thousands of deaths and environmental damage in the following years.
• In the aftermath of the tragedy, he represented Union Carbide and negotiated a settlement with the government, securing compensation for the victims.

6. Rights of minorities to establish and administer education institutions: TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

• He argued in the landmark TMA Pai case in support of minority rights to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
• The court held that linguistic and religious minorities have to be determined on a state-by-state basis.
• Additionally, the government has the power to frame regulations which will apply to minority-run educational institutions.
• However, these regulations cannot destroy the minority character of the institution.

7. Governor to act only upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers, chief minister: Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker

• He played a crucial role in resolving a political crisis in Arunachal Pradesh following the rebellion of 21 MLAs in 2015.
• He asserted that the governors must act upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers and chief ministers.
• His legal intervention restored the constitutional order in the state.

8. Cauvery Water Dispute: State of Karnataka v State of Tamil Nadu

• For over three decades, he represented Karnataka in the Cauvery water dispute with Tamil Nadu.
• Due to the non-compliance, he refused to argue the case on behalf of the Karnataka government any further.