Listen to this article:

The following speech was delivered on August 1 in Mumbai, by Justice Abhay S. Oka, former judge of the Supreme Court, as part of the inaugural Advocate Haroon Solkar Memorial Lecture.

The programme, organised by the Lawyers’ Alliance for Justice, also felicitated Senior Advocate Rafique Dada with the ‘Juridical Excellence Award 2026. ’

Justice Oka’s remarks on the courts’ role when it hears cases on protests, and on the broader aspects of dissent, have made headlines. The following is the full text of his speech, transcribed by Saras Anand, an editorial intern at The Wire.

Mr Rafique Dada, Mr Darius Khambata, Mr Vishwajeet Sawant, Senior Advocates, members of the Solkar family, my former colleagues in the Bombay High Court who are present here, senior members of the Appellate side bar, other senior advocates and members of the bar and law students.

I consider myself to be lucky to be part of this function to felicitate Mr Rafique Dada.

I have seen the late Mr Haroon Solkar sitting in room number 18. I have seen him appearing before various courts, but I did not have much of a personal acquaintance with him. I have seen him arguing forcefully before benches dealing with criminal matters. Those are the days when we juniors were told to always sit in the court and not to stand in corridors, and therefore I have the privilege of hearing so many cases conducted by Mr Solkar.

I know that Mr Darius Khambata is going to speak on Mr Rafique Dada. But I want to briefly speak about Mr Rafique Dada. In 1995-96, he was the Additional Solicitor General of India. It was a group of first appeals arising out of land acquisition references from Raigad district, where the issue was whether the persons in possession of salt works were the owners of the salt works or whether the same were vested in the Union of India. The trial court had held in favour of the persons claiming to be the salt work owners, and that was a group of about 95 first appeals, and Mr Rafique Dada, who represented the Central Government had told the bench headed by Justice Dudhat that he was going to take about 8 to 10 days because he had to devote a lot of time to argue on law and argue on facts in each case. I remember that late Mr Bhausaheb Bobde, Senior Advocate, was appearing for some of the claimants. Dr D. Y. Chandrachud, as he then was, was appearing for other claimants, and I was representing about 27 claimants. I was in the early years of practice, and I knew that Mr Dada would argue for about eight days. My matters were being called out in other courts. I was rushing to other courts. Late Mr Bhausaheb Bobde saw that, and he told me at the end of the day, he said, “Please don’t do this because you will learn so much from the arguments of Mr Rafique Dada. So, don’t miss that”.And please remember Bhausaheb Bobde was opposing Mr Dada. I still remember the arguments of Mr Dada. He started with the history of land revenue laws in India. He told the court how revenue records evolved. He discussed the 1879 Bombay Land Revenue Code and 1921 rules under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and it was a treat to hear him. He submitted his written arguments, and since I used to appear in many such matters, I preserved those written arguments. But unfortunately, when I transited from here [Mumbai] to Bangalore and Bangalore to Delhi, somehow I lost the copy of the written arguments submitted by Mr Dada. In 2018, when I was heading a division bench, again I had an opportunity to hear a great performance by Mr Rafique Dada. I think in 2017, an amendment was brought to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act which permitted the municipal corporation to levy property tax on capital value.So, he argued, I think, on behalf of the Property Owners’ Association, where the challenge was to the amendment and rules framed pursuant to that amendment. It was really a mesmerising performance. I must say that we could not decide in his favour, but I remember his performance.

There is one aspect of Mr Rafique Dada I don’t think anybody will point out. Therefore, I want to point it out. I believe the bench headed by Justice Ajit Shah appointed a committee of lawyers, architects, and eminent citizens of Bombay to monitor activities on Chowpatty beach, and Mr Rafique Dada was the chairman, and I must tell you that later on, as a judge, I had occasion to deal with that litigation. I must tell you that it is only because of Mr Rafique Dada and his colleagues that we see an encroachment-free Chowpatty today, and I can’t resist the temptation to say something about what he did as a member of the committee. I think in 2015 or 2016, the Government of Maharashtra applied to the committee because the committee’s permission was required. The Government of Maharashtra applied to the committee for holding a Make in India event, where they sought permission to construct a huge pandal and a huge stage on the Chowpatty. The committee headed by Mr Rafique Dada wrote a long order, and brilliantly written order, giving reasons why such permission cannot be granted.

It was challenged before me by the Government of Maharashtra, and I confirmed it. At the mentioning stage, the Supreme Court granted an interim order permitting the event to be held. Later on, due to a very unfortunate event, we realised how right Mr Rafique Dada was because after that huge pandal was erected, it was gutted by fire, and it caused so much

damage that the entire sand on the beach was burnt, and that was one of his reasons in his order.

I don’t want to take more time because Mr Darius is going to speak on  Mr Rafique Dada. Today’s topic is very interesting: Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, followed or forgotten?

Of course, I am going to express my personal views on this subject, but most of these personal views find place in my judgments. As all of us know, there are two important fundamental rights conferred on us by the Constitution. One is Article 21, and the other is Article 19(1)(a). And we always say that freedom of speech and expression is one of the most important fundamental rights. Of course, it is subject to clause two of Article 19. You cannot exercise your freedom of speech and expression by violating the law which is framed under clause two of Article 19.

Democracy will become meaningless if we do not have freedom of speech and expression. Under Article 21, everyone has the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life. The freedom of speech and expression under our Constitution is not confined to written or spoken words; it extends to art, literature, drama, comedy, cinema, etc. And most importantly, it includes freedom to express opinions. In the absence of a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), no one can lead a dignified and meaningful life, and that is how violation of Article 19(1)(a) always amounts to violation of Article 21.

There is one more important provision of the Constitution that we have actually overlooked rather than forgotten. It is Article 51A which lays down fundamental duties of the citizens. Article 51A was brought into the Constitution by the infamous 42nd Amendment during the dark days of the Emergency. And that must be one of the reasons why we overlooked Article 51A. In fact, if you go through Seervai’s great commentary on constitutional law, third edition, he has devoted only 15 to 16 lines to Article 51A. If I am not wrong, Mr Seervai says that it is not at all important because it is not a law. Later on, we realised that Article 51A is so important, especially in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, which held that the fundamental duty of the citizens becomes the fundamental duty of the State. So, all fundamental duties under Article 51A are the fundamental duties of the State and naturally its instrumentalities and agencies, and that is how 51A becomes very relevant.

The first fundamental duty laid down in Article 51A is the duty to abide by the Constitution and to respect the ideals under the Constitution. All our laws are framed........

© The Wire