Roses in December by M.C Chagla: Chief Justice | Important Questions

The book “Roses in December” was authored by Mahomedali Currim Chagla (1900–1981), former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and a diplomat. The book is a narrative of his life and experiences, encompassing his distinguished legal and diplomatic career.

Short Answer Questions

Q. When did M.C. Chagla took charge of the office of Chief Justice of Bombay high court and from whom?

Ans. On August 15, 1947 M.C chagla took charge of the office of chief justice of Bombay high court from Sir Leonard Stone.

Q. Objects of Chagla while writing a Judgement?

Ans. Chagla’s only object when writing a judgment was to be brief and to be clear, precise and lucid in whatever views he expressed.

Q. Who said this and to whom, “I accepted the judgeship because you asked me, if anyone else had done so I would not have accepted it”.

Ans. Mody to M.C. Chagla.

Q. What were the three linguistic group in the Bombay?

Ans. There were three linguistic groups, the Marathi-speaking, the Gujarati-speaking and the Kannada-speaking.

Q. Who offered a judgeship of the federal court to the Chagla?

Ans. Justice Kania offered a judgeship of the federal court to the Chagla.

Q. Who said to whom “Your worship is holding a pen”?

Ans. Advocate General Amin to Chagla.

Q. Who said, “politicians are vulgar when they are liberalised by history”?

Ans. Sir John Robert Seeley said, "Politics are vulgar when they are not liberalised by history, and history fades into mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to practical politics".

Q. Write the name of the judgement given by Chagla against the government?

Ans. The landmark report given by M.C. Chagla that indicted the government is commonly known as the Chagla Commission Report on the LIC-Mundhra Scandal (1958).

Q. Who was Paul Robeson?

Ans. Paul Robeson was a famous African-American athlete, singer, actor, and advocate for the civil rights of people around the world.

Q. For how long did Chagla remain the Chief Justice of Bombay?

Ans. Mahomedali Currim Chagla (M.C. Chagla) served as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for approximately 11 years, from his appointment on August 15, 1947, until his retirement on October 26, 1958. He was the first Indian to be appointed as the permanent Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court after India's independence.

Q. Who was the first Attorney General of India?

Ans. Motilal Chimanlal Setalvad (M.C. Setalvad) was the first Attorney General of India.

Q. When did M.C. Chagla join the bench?

Ans. 1941.

Q. What was the extra month salary for M.C. Chagla when he was chief justice of Bombay?

Ans. M.C. Chagla said, “I believed that when the court was sitting my place was there. My wife would often ask me in fun whether I received extra pay for sitting in court even when I was not well, and my answer was that a conscience that remains untroubled was to me as gratifying as an extra month’s salary, and that I would be utterly miserable if I stayed at home while the court was functioning.”

Q. What was the Chagla’s thought regarding closing of the court?

Ans. M.C. Chagla said, “I have never believed in closing courts or government offices as mark of respect for someone who has died. To my mind, the best way of honouring his memory is to work harder than we did before. One may cancel parties and functions, if one likes, but I do not understand why one should cease working because someone has passed away.”

Q. What is meant of secularism according to M.C. Chagla?

Ans. According to M.C. Chagla, real secularism meant that one did not pass over the claims of those who were really fit, merely because they belonged to a particular community.

Q. What title was awarded to M.S. Subbulakshmi?

Ans. In April 1955, Chagla presided over a very large meeting in Bombay to felicitate M. S. Subbulakshmi when she was awarded the title of “Padina Bhushan”. Chagla called her the Mira Bai of South India.

Long Answer Questions

Q. What was the district court conditions when Mr. Chagla went there?

Ans. One of the things Chagla noticed was the terrible surroundings in which the junior Civil Judges had to function. Chagla found nothing that was conducive to the proper working of a court. There was no library, sometimes not even elementary text books; an indifferent Bar and a ramshackle building. However, Chagla remarked, one must pay his tribute to these worthy men who, working in such conditions functioned very capably and to the satisfaction of the litigating public.

Q. Describe M.C Chagla’s view on appointment of Judges?

Ans. Judges are often appointed having no judicial experience, or who have been divorced from judicial work for a long stretch of time. Chagla think this is entirely wrong; judges should be appointed from the body of practising advocates or from District Judges who are actually doing judicial work. He said, “this not in disparagement of judges who have been appointed from the executive, as some of them may have become good judges; but the principle is wrong, and exceptions do not justify the violations of a principle.”

Q. Who was the Daphtary?

Ans. C.K. Daphtary was Advocate-General, who also appeared before Chagla, but not in many cases as he soon went away to Delhi, first as Solicitor-General, and then Attorney-General. He once told Chagla that his philosophy in life was minimum work in return for maximum result, and he practised this philosophy to perfection. His arguments were always brief and to the point, expressed in his own inimitable style, and always lightened up by an unfailing sense of humour.

Q. Why did Pritt charge heavy fee from the capitalist?

Ans. Pritt was a communist, and practised the communist faith openly. Once, without any restraint, he replied, “I like to charge heavy fees to my capitalist clients, so that their capital should get less, and I can use the money to further the communist cause. I am now going to South Africa to defend some communists, and I will not a charge them any fee, because I have earned enough from my two capitalist clients.”

Q. Tell something about J.C Shah?

Ans. J. C. Shah was Chagla’s student at the Law College; they practised together at the Bar. He was Chagla’s colleague on the Bench when he finally went to the Supreme Court and ultimately became the Chief Justice of India. His one passion in life was the law. He used to tell Chagla that even in the vacation, he read All-India reports and Chagla said that it was a pity, since there were more interesting things to read in the vacation than law reports. He made the most successful judges in the Supreme Court, and was an acknowledged authority on income-tax cases. This is surprising because he had never had anything to do with income-tax cases either as lawyer or as judge at the High Court. But his industry is so great and his legal acumen so acute that he had no difficulty in acquiring a mastery over a subject which is not altogether simple.

Q. Name the members from original and appellate side?

Ans. M.C. Chagla, while serving as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, discusses the appointment of judges to the bench, distinguishing between those from the Original and Appellate sides.

From the Appellate side, he appointed, Shah, Datar, Tarkunde, V.S. Desai, Dahyabhai Patel, and Shelat.

From the Original side, he appointed, K.T. Desai, S.T. Desai, N.A. Mody, and K.K. Desai.

Chagla emphasized that these appointees were highly successful practitioners who often sacrificed higher incomes to accept positions on the bench.

Q. What was Chagla’s thought about the ‘Karma’ and ‘Kismat’?

Ans. M.C. Chagla expresses strong and thoughtful views on the concepts of Kismat and Karma, especially in the context of social reform and human responsibility.

Chagla refers to a speech he delivered in November 1947 at the All-India Conference of Social Workers in Bombay, where he was the Chairman of the reception committee. In his speech, he criticises the way traditional religious beliefs such as Karma in Hinduism and Kismat in Islam were interpreted by people in society. According to him, these beliefs often created a passive attitude towards suffering and social injustice.

He explains that the doctrine of Karma led many Hindus to believe that a person’s present suffering is the result of sins committed in a previous life. As a result, poverty, illness, and hardship were seen as something predetermined and unavoidable. Similarly, the concept of Kismat among Muslims was interpreted to mean that whatever is destined by fate must be accepted without protest or effort to change it.

Chagla strongly disagrees with this attitude. He argues that such beliefs encourage people to tolerate social evils instead of fighting against them. According to him, poverty, illiteracy, and disease are not the result of fate but are social problems created by human negligence and can be removed through collective effort and reform.

He further points out that this philosophy of fatalism is often used by privileged sections of society to justify inequality. Those who live in comfort and luxury find it convenient to believe that suffering is “destined,” as it removes their moral responsibility towards the poor and oppressed. In this way, the idea of fate becomes a tool to ignore injustice.

Chagla strongly asserts that this mindset must be challenged. He believes that human beings have the power and responsibility to change society. Social progress cannot be achieved unless people reject fatalism and actively work to remove poverty, ignorance, and inequality.

Thus, Chagla’s views on Kismat and Karma in Roses in December reflect his rational and reformist outlook. He emphasises that human effort, not destiny, is the key to social change, and that accepting suffering as fate only delays progress and justice in society.

Q. Write about the two confrontations of Chagla with Morarji Desai?

Ans. In his autobiography, Roses in December, M.C. Chagla details two specific confrontations between himself, while serving as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and Morarji Desai, who was then the Chief Minister of Bombay. Both incidents concerned the independence of the judiciary and the limits of executive interference in judicial appointments.

The first conflict arose when Chagla recommended a junior District Judge for elevation to the High Court, bypassing Mr. Lad, who was senior. Morarji Desai insisted that the senior judge (Lad) should be appointed and, when Chagla did not comply, Desai threatened that he would not recommend any other judges for the pending vacancies until his suggestion was accepted. Chagla famously stood his ground against this executive pressure, stating: "I can afford to carry on with the existing strength of judges, but I will not yield on what is to me a matter of principle."

The second disagreement involved Chagla’s proposal to recruit an Assistant Judge directly from the Bar. Desai objected to the appointment because the candidate was a member of the Hindu Mahasabha, and Desai was uncomfortable with the candidate's political affiliation. Chagla challenged this interference, maintaining that a member of the Bar had the right to hold any political views, provided they were not seditious or subversive, and that such views were entirely irrelevant to one's fitness to serve as a judge, so long as they did not influence conduct on the Bench.

Despite these principled clashes, Chagla noted that the two maintained a professional relationship. They famously established a routine of meeting on Sundays to resolve administrative problems over lunch, which helped them navigate these tensions and avoid prolonged friction between the judiciary and the executive.

Q. What was the difference between original side and appellate side in the court according to M.C Chagla?

Ans. The relations between the Original side of the High Court and the Appellate side were not very cordial. Those who were not barristers or had not passed the Advocate O.S. examination could not appear on the Original side. There was the dual system on the Original side, which meant that no one could argue a case unless he was instructed by a solicitor. This system prevails even today, but in those days only barristers and Advocates O.S. could appear on the Original side. Bands, also, were worn only by the members of the Original side.

Chagla thought that all this was wrong and undesirable. He, therefore, decided that every advocate had the right to practise on either side of the High Court, provided he observed the rules pertaining to that side. In other words, even an advocate practising on the Appellate side could appear on the Original side, provided he was instructed by a solicitor. The difference, therefore, between advocates O.S. and barristers and other advocates was, for all practical purposes, done away with. This problem has plagued the Calcutta High Court for a long time, and Chagla was told that even then the differences between the two sides were fully maintained.

Q. What was the reason behind the lengthy hearings according to M.C. Chagla?

Ans. In his autobiography Roses in December, M.C. Chagla offers a candid critique of the Indian legal system, and his perspective on the duration of court hearings stems from his deep-seated belief that justice should be swift, clear, and accessible.

According to Chagla, the "lengthy hearings" that often plagued the courts were not inherent to the pursuit of justice but were instead the result of several factors related to the conduct of the bar and the bench.

Chagla frequently expressed frustration with lawyers who would argue cases at excessive length. In his view, a well-prepared lawyer should be able to present the core legal issues concisely without needing hours to repeat the same points. He viewed the unnecessary prolongation of arguments as a disservice to the litigants who were paying for the time. He was a proponent of a "strong bench." He believed that a judge should not be a passive listener but an active conductor of the proceedings. He argued that hearings became unnecessarily long when judges were too timid or indifferent to intervene. By failing to stop repetitive arguments or steer the lawyers back to the relevant points, judges allowed proceedings to drag on, which he felt undermined the efficiency and dignity of the court.

Chagla noted that the Indian legal system inherited a tradition from the British era where oratorical skill and length were often equated with the quality of advocacy. He pushed back against this, arguing that in a modern, independent India, the hallmark of a great lawyer was not the duration of their speech but their ability to assimilate facts and apply the law with precision and brevity.

Q. Explain the sausage case.

Ans. The first popular case came to be known as the “sausages case”. The Manager of the Ritz Hotel, a gentleman called Mario, was convicted by a Magistrate and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for committing a breach of the sumptuary law by serving a course at a dinner in excess of what was permitted. The appeal came before Chagla and Justice Dikshit. Daphtary, who was the Advocate-General, appeared before Chagla to support the conviction. What Mario had served were cocktail sausages, which was a very tiny variety of the real sausage.

As soon as the case was called on, Chagla told Daphtary, “Mr. Advocate-General, I am afraid no one in this case knows or has ever eaten cocktail sausages. My brother Dixit, the Government Pleader and your learned opponent are all, I am sure, innocent of this delicious snack. You and I are the only two who understand the meaning and significance of cocktail sausages. Do you seriously suggest that these constitute a course?” And Daphtary, with his usual fair-mindedness, immediately answered, “No, my Lord, I cannot in honesty say so”. That was enough. It finished the appeal. The conviction was set aside, and Mario was acquitted.

Q. What was the Chagla’s view on the Hindu Monogamy Act?

Ans. Hindu Monogamy Act was challenged before Chagla on the ground of discrimination between one community and another. It was argued that it was discriminatory to place a restriction upon the Hindu community alone, when the Muslin community could indulge in polygamy. Chagla had sympathies in favour of this argument.

Chagla had always thought that the Government had shown lack of courage in not passing a Monogamy Act which applied to all communities. With great reluctance Chagla had to come to the conclusion that he could not strike down the law, as it was well settled that a social reform measure need not apply to all sections and that reform could be brought about by stages. Government was, therefore, justified in introducing this social reform as a first step applicable only to the Hindu community.

Q. Describe the first meeting of M.C. Chagla with Palkhivala?

Ans. M.C. Chagla speaks of Nani Palkhivala with immense professional respect and warmth, reflecting on a relationship that evolved from a judge-advocate dynamic to one of deep mutual admiration.

The anecdote of their first encounter is often cited in legal circles and is consistent with the timeline of Chagla’s career as a judge on the Bombay High Court. Chagla recalls that shortly after he joined the Bench (in 1941), he was sitting in his chambers during a lunch interval. He was informed that a young advocate named Palkhivala wished to see him. At that time, Palkhivala was an unknown, junior lawyer, not yet the legal titan he would eventually become. When Palkhivala entered the chambers, Chagla was struck by the contrast between his reputation as a "diffident" and shy young man and the formidable intellect he displayed. Chagla described him as appearing quite modest, standing before him as a young advocate, showing no sign of the immense legal command that would soon define his career.

Chagla writes of Palkhivala as a brilliant young talent who caught his attention through his sheer competence and growth in the Bombay High Court. He consistently frames Palkhivala as one of the most brilliant minds of his time. His writing emphasizes Palkhivala's mastery of the law, his unique persuasive power, and his deep understanding of constitutional matters.

Chagla highlights their professional relationship as one based on mutual respect. The most specific mention of a personal interaction related to the book itself is in the preface, where Chagla gratefully acknowledges that Palkhivala lent him the services of his own stenographer, Shri Pithavalla, to help transcribe the dictations for the book.

Q. Tell something about Seervai?

Ans. Seervai is one of those few lawyers who deserves to be noticed. He was the Advocate-General of Maharashtra when Chagla wrote this book. Chagla already referred to the case Seervai argued before him when he was Puisne Judge. Seervai possessed intellectual integrity of a high order. He was most hardworking and conscientious, and never argued a point in which he does not believe, and which he thought is untenable or inarguable. Judges could have always depended on him, not to mislead them, or to lead them astray. He was so sincere and so convinced about the validity of the argument he advanced that sometimes he failed to realise that there can be equal force in the arguments of the opposite side, and that there can never be any positive certainty as to which of the two is right, and which will ultimately prevail.

Q. Explain the 3 invitation received by the M.C. Chagla when he was in the court?

Ans. When Chagla received his first invitation to Governor House for the usual “At Home”, they found that in order to get there before the Governor arrived, they would have to rise early from the court. He, accordingly, wrote to the Governor to say that he meant no disrespect to him but it would be impossible for them to attend before he arrived as protocol required. He asked, therefore, that the governor should excuse him and his colleagues from attending the “At Home”. The Governor immediately wrote back that he fully appreciated his point of view, and he would not mind if he reached the Governor House after he had arrived. This enabled Chagla and his colleagues to attend the “At Home” despite the requirements of protocol.

The same problem arose when Warren, Chief Justice of the United States, visited India. Chagla received a telephone message from Delhi that he should go to the airport to receive Mr. Warren, but as the plane was due to arrive during court hours, he informed Delhi that it would be impossible for him to receive Mr. Warren, but he would go and call on him at Governor House the first thing after the rising of the court. New Delhi was insistent; the officials feared that Chagla’s absence might imply discourtesy on his part. But Chagla was adamant, and ultimately had his way. He went to see Warren immediately after the court had risen for the day. He went to him and told him why he was not at the airport and apologised. Warren readily agreed that what Chagla had done was perfectly right. In fact, that precisely was what he had done in a similar situation in the United States. The President of the United States wanted him to attend some function when the Supreme Court was sitting, and he had declined to do so.

When Lord Mountbatten visited Bombay as the first Governor General of India, Chagla was among those invited to the airport to receive him. The court was then in session and he naturally declined the invitation. After that Chagla was never again invited to receive anyone, however high the V.I.P. might be. The Government apparently gave him up as incorrigible.

Q.  Relation of M.C. Chagla with Morarji?

Ans. Chagla had mentioned that later, he and Morarji became the best of friends. He had also paid a compliment to him as a fine administrator. They both agreed that instead of exchanging letters and making notes on files, the best way to solve administrative problems was to meet, thrash them out, and come to an immediate decision.

It became a practice that almost every Sunday, or every other Sunday, Morarji would come and have lunch with Chagla; and after lunch they would sit down with the files which contained the questions to be decided between the High Court and the Government, and in less than half an hour, they made their decision, and the outstanding problems no longer remained outstanding.

Chagla’s wife would try to give him as good a vegetarian lunch as possible and both Chagla and his wife became vegetarians for that one afternoon. Morarji would protest to Chagla’s wife saying, “Why should you go vegetarian on my account? I am not all that sensitive. I have no objection to you or your husband eating non-vegetarian dishes while sitting at the same table”. Chagla’s wife had a ready answer, “A vegetarian cannot eat non-vegetarian food, but a non-vegetarian can certainly be vegetarian on occasion”. Chagla had a selfish reason for giving Morarji a very good lunch. Like most of the people, Morarji was more pliant and manageable after a good meal, and it became easier for Chagla to obtain Morarji’s assent to his proposals.

Q. Relations of Chagla with the Y.B. Chavan?

Ans. Chagla’s relations with Chavan were not of long duration. Chagla swore him in as the Chief Minister when Chagla was acting as Governor. Chagla remembered when he was swearing him in, Chavan told him “Chagla, as far as matters about the High Court or judicial matters are concerned, I will strictly abide by your advice.” Chagla appericiates him by saying, “he kept his word”. According to Chagla, there was never any difference between him and Chavan, and whatever advice Chagla gave and whatever suggestions he made were accepted without any reservation whatsoever.

There was one occasion when Chavan didn’t accept Chagla’s advice. It was with regard to Chagla’s successor. Chagla strongly pressed Chavan to appoint Shah, who was then number two. He told him that if he appoints Shah, he would have the consolation that he was leaving the High Court in absolutely safe hands. But there was Chainani, who was an I.C.S. Judge, and was senior to Shah, and Chavan decided that he should succeed Chagla. He reminded Chavan that the High Court of Bombay had never had an I.C.S. Chief Justice before, and there was no compelling reason to make a departure then.

Chavan then explained that passing over Chainani might offend the Sindhi community in Bombay, which constituted a minority. Chagla told him that he could only advise him on grounds of merit and not on political considerations. Such considerations would naturally weigh with a politician, but they should not and did not weigh with a Chief Justice.

Q. What was the fatal incident in Chagla’s life, when he was the Chief Justice of Bombay? Explain.

Ans. Few Chief Justices had the dubious privilege of an attempt on their lives. Chagla was one of the few. On a Saturday morning, when the Court was not sitting, he was working in his office at the Chief Justice House. At about 11 o’clock, Chagla’s chopdar came in and told him that someone from Dhulia wanted to see him. He asked the chopdar that whether he had an appointment with him. The chopdar said that he did not have an appointment, but the man had said that the matter was urgent. In his early days as Chief Justice, Chagla believed that he should be accessible to anyone who wanted to see him.

But he found that this experiment did not work in practice, as there were too many litigants who wanted to come in and discuss the cases pending in the Court. Chagla, therefore, decided that if any member of the Bar wanted to see him, he could come in at any time without an appointment, but with regard to non-lawyers an appointment had to be taken and the reason for the appointment shall be given to his Secretary.

In consonance with this practice, Chagla did not want to see this man from Dhulia. But the chopdar came back again with the message that the man had come all the way from Dhulia, the matter was very urgent, and he should not deny him an audience. Chagla was about to relent when his daughter who had gone out and had just returned, burst into his room and said, “Daddy, you should not see this man”.

Chagla asked her with some surprise, “Why? He is a poor man, he has taken all the trouble to come here, and it would be very hard-hearted on my part to refuse to see him”. All that she could say in reply was, “Daddy, I do not like the man’s appearance and so please do not see him”. Something in her voice made Chagla uneasy. He, therefore, called his chopdar and told him to ask the man to see his Secretary in the High Court, and get an appointment after telling him of the nature of the business.

When the man found that Chagla was not prepared to see him, he made a sudden dash for his office. The chopdar tried to prevent him, but he quickly whipped out a huge knife and stabbed the chopdar. In the meantime, Chagla’s son and son-in-law also appeared on the scene, when the man tried to stab them also. Fortunately, there were two policemen with rifles outside the gate of the Chief Justice House.

They were stationed there because of certain riots that had broken out in the city just before this incident. And although Chagla had told the Government that he did not want any special security, since he did not see any reason any anyone should want to harm him. The Government insisted that for routine security reasons these policemen would continue at their posts till the situation in the city had calmed down. One of those policemen rushed in, and when he found that this man could not be overpowered without mortal risk, he shot him dead.

The Government instituted a searching enquiry into the back ground of this person and about his possible motive, but the enquiry did not yield any result. The surprising thing about the episode is that Chagla had never seen this man, he had never known him, there was no litigation which he had in the court, and there was no earthly reason why that man should have wanted to do away with him. The news of the attempted assassination spread all over the city.

Mr. Shantilal Shah, who was a member of the Government, and living close to Chagla, rushed to his house, and only left when Chagla assured him that the situation had been restored to normality. That evening Chagla went to the Club as usual to play bridge, and everybody was surprised to see that he was there. Chagla told them that he was safe and sound, and had not had a shock.

So this was one fatal incident in Chagla’s life, when he was the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

Q. Describe MC Chagla’s tenure as chief justice.

Ans. M. C. Chagla is presented as a deeply committed, independent, and reform-oriented Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. He assumed office on 15 August 1947, succeeding Sir Leonard Stone, at a crucial moment when India had just attained independence. Chagla describes that although he initially felt anxious and burdened by the immense responsibilities of the office, he approached his duties with determination, sincerity, and complete dedication.

One of the most striking aspects of Chagla’s personality as Chief Justice was his extraordinary sense of duty and discipline. He believed that the administration of justice required constant commitment and punctuality. In his autobiography, he proudly notes that he never absented himself from court even for a single day. To him, the satisfaction of performing judicial duties honestly was more valuable than any financial reward or additional salary. This reflects his deep respect for the judiciary and his belief that judges must serve as guardians of justice rather than seekers of privilege.

Chagla also displayed remarkable administrative insight and practical wisdom. Upon becoming Chief Justice, he carefully observed the weaknesses within the judicial system. He noticed that several judges lacked adequate judicial experience or had remained disconnected from actual judicial work for a long period. Chagla strongly believed that judges should either be selected from experienced practising advocates or from district judges actively engaged in judicial administration. According to him, only such persons could understand the realities of litigation and dispense effective justice. This reveals his practical and reformist approach towards the judiciary.

Another important feature of Chagla’s personality was his fearless independence. He firmly believed that the judiciary must remain impartial and should never function under government influence. Consequently, he delivered several judgments against the government whenever he felt that citizens’ rights or constitutional principles were being violated. He considered the judiciary to be the protector of individual liberty and democratic values.

His liberal and humanitarian outlook became particularly visible in matters relating to preventive detention. Chagla openly disliked and criticized the Preventive Detention Act because he believed that such laws could easily threaten personal freedom in a democratic society. Whenever he found loopholes, procedural irregularities, or misuse of power by the government, he did not hesitate to release detainees. This demonstrated his courage, compassion, and unwavering faith in civil liberties and the rule of law.

Chagla was also a great judicial reformer who sought to modernise and democratise the Bombay High Court. At that time, there existed distinctions and tensions between the Appellate Side and the Original Side of the court. Chagla attempted to remove these divisions and foster harmony within the legal profession. He emphasized that every advocate should have the right to practise on both sides of the court without discrimination. This reflected his belief in equality, professional unity, and fairness.

Furthermore, he worked to simplify and improve the judicial structure. He abolished the distinction between “pleaders” and “advocates,” thereby promoting equality among legal practitioners. He also changed the designation of subordinate judges to “Civil Judges,” which gave greater dignity and uniformity to the subordinate judiciary. These reforms indicate his progressive outlook and administrative efficiency.

Thus, as portrayed in Roses in December, M. C. Chagla emerges as a disciplined, fearless, liberal, and reform-minded Chief Justice. His integrity, devotion to duty, concern for civil liberties, and efforts to strengthen the judiciary made him one of the most respected judges in independent India.