Roses in December by M.C Chagla: International Court | 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 was M.C. Chagla appointed as an Ad-Hoc judge?

Ans. M.C. Chagla was appointed as an ad hoc judge to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague in 1957.

Q. What was the case between India & Portugal?

Ans. The case before the Court concerned Portugal which claimed to have the right of passage through the territory of India in order to ensure communications between its territory of Daman and its enclave territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

Q. Which were the two languages, recognised in the international court?

Ans. English and French were the two languages, recognised in the international court.

Q. Who was the representative of India in the India-Portugal case?

Ans. Mr. Setalvad, the then Attorney-General of India, was the representative of India in the India-Portugal case.

Q. What was the term of judges in international court?

Ans. 9 years.

Q. Who was appointed as ad hoc judges in the international court from India & Portugal?

Ans. M.C. Chagla from India, and Mr. Fernandes by Portugal were appointed as ad-hoc judges in the international court.

Q. How many Permanent judges were there in the international court?

Ans. There were 15 permanent judges in the international court.

Q. Where is the international court housed?

Ans. The International Court is housed in the Peace Palace Hague, which was built as a result of a Peace Conference convened by Emperor Nicholas II of Russia in 1899.

Q. What was the name of the room where the private session was held?

Ans. “Salle de Bol”, a beautiful room where the private session was held.

Q. What is the current name of South-west Africa?

Ans. The current name of South-west Africa is Namibia.

Q. Why M.C. Chagla wanted to resign from the international court?

Ans. When M.C. Chagla was appointed Ambassador to the United States, he wrote to the Prime Minister tendering his resignation as an ad hoc judge, pointing out that as he was now proceeding to Washington, it would be improper for him to continue in that judicial capacity.

Q. Who was Dr. Jakota?

Ans. Dr. Jakota was the Director in the Treaty Division of the External Affairs Ministry. Chagla found him extremely able, with a wide knowledge of International law, and a full understanding of the attitude which India should take up before the Court in keeping with its avowed policy against racial discrimination.

Q. What was the deficiency of the international court?

Ans. M.C. Chagla identified that the primary deficiency of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was that its jurisdiction is voluntary, not compulsory, for sovereign states. He noted that this weakness limits the court's effectiveness, as nations can choose not to appear or be bound by the court.

Q. How the private dispute between the citizens can be settled peacefully according to M.C. Chagla?

Ans. There are three reasons why private disputes between citizens in any country can be peacefully settled. The first is the supremacy of law, the second is the existence of Courts of law to whose jurisdiction every citizen has to compulsorily submit and the third is that there is sanction behind the decision of the Court. The whole might of the state is behind the Court in seeing that its decision is respected and enforced. Chagla pointed out, in the International Court, none of the three conditions is present.

Q. Who were the president and vice president of international court?

Ans. The President of the World Court was Hackworth, a representative of the United States and whom Chagla came to know very well. For Chagla, he was a judge full of common sense, impatient of technicalities and procedural details, and, like him, bored to tears with the slow, tardy methods adopted by the Court for deciding cases. The Vice President was, Badawi, a representative of Egypt. He was a very fine jurist, fully conversant with the principles of international law.

Long Answer Questions

Q. Why the electing system of Judges of international court was not good according to M.C. Chagla?

Ans. Acoording to Chagla, one of the serious weaknesses of the International Court is that although under the Charter only eminent jurists representing different cultures and civilizations of the world are expected to be nominated to the Bench, in reality, the appointments are very often political in natue. Judges are elected for a term of 9 years on a very handsome salary, and in order to be elected as a judge the candidate must obtain a majority of votes, both in the Security Council and the United Nations Assembly The inevitable result is that a great deal of lobbying and canvassing has got to be done. The very idea of an elective judge is anathema to anyone brought up in the tradition of British jurisprudence. The very idea of a judge carries the requirements of impartiality and detachment.

Chagla remarked that it is difficult to replace the present system of election by a more satisfactory one. Unfortunately, not only is the judge elected for a term of 9 years, he also has the right to seek re-election. This means that towards the end of this term, one has to start thinking about his voters and of the countries whose suffrage he will seek.

Q. Who was Lautrepacht?

Ans. Lautrepacht was a well-known jurist. He edited Oppenheim’s book on International Law. He was a charming conversationalist, and very much interested in India and Indian affairs. He was one of those who disliked Zafrullah. Chagla remember Lautrepacht asking him to, write to Nehru immediately to start doing the necessary lobbying among embassies and in the United Nations for our candidate, for Zafrullah was already engaged in doing this, as his term was about to come to an end, and he was anxious to be re-elected. The election was still far way, and Nehru thought that the time had not come to set the machinery in motion. But on Lautrepacht’s insistence, Chagla wrote to Nehru again and told him that other countries got started and tried to secure commitments well before the election.

Q. Why did Mr. Chagla withdrew his question in the international court?

Ans. Chagla remembered and advocate arguing for Portugal. He felt that if a certain question was put to him, and if he was asked to elucidate the position, much of the argument could considerably be shortened. Perfectly innocently, Chagla drafted the question he had in mind, and passed it to the President. The President sent back a note to him to the effect that if he wanted to ask a question, the Court would have to adjourn, there would have to be a discussion on whether the question was proper and should be put, and a decision would have to be taken by a majority of the judges. It was clearly a case of the remedy being worse than the disease. Needless to say, Chagla promptly withdrew the question, and allowed the proceedings to take their slow, uninhibited, accustomed course.

Q. What was the proceeding of the international court? Explain.

Ans. The proceedings started with the junior most judge expressing his opinion about the whole case, and then the other judges follow, expressing their views according to the order of seniority. This is a sound practice because, if senior judges were to give their opinion first, the junior judges might be overawed by the depth of experience and the vastness of learning shown by their senior colleagues. Working on the basis of the points so elucidated, the President prepares a questionnaire which sets out the real issues that arise for determination.

The questionnaire is discussed and settled by all the judges, and then there is voting on each question. The majority is thus ascertained, and a Drafting Committee of three judges out of those constituting the majority is then appointed. The draft then comes before all the judges, and it is discussed in the greatest possible detail. Lengthy argument takes place, and here again if a judge speaks in English his remarks are translated into French and vice versa.

After the amendments and alterations are embodied in the draft, it is read for the second time. But before the second reading, judges who wish to give dissenting judgments must send them in to the Drafting Committee. At last, at long last, a vote is taken and the conclusions embodied in the draft as finally settled. This vote is by a roll call, and every judge is bound to vote. The votes are recorded in the judgment without disclosing the names of the judges. Then the judgment is ready for printing, and is pronounced in open court.

Q. Who was Sir Mohamed Zafrullah and where he spent his salary?

Ans. Sir Mohamed Zafrullah Khan of Pakistan was an extremely able and astute lawyer, but not a friendly character, and not very popular with his colleagues. He had married a young woman from West Asia, whom he kept in strict purdah. and one of the stock jokes among the judges was whether anyone had seen Lady Zafrullah.

The marriage, however, did not last long. It was well-known that he was also very tight-fisted. Every judge receiving a princely salary of $ 21,000/- a year tax free and duty-free, naturally had a car, but Zafrullah did not. And every evening after the public session when judges met in the robing room, the question was always asked whom Zafrullah had approached for a lift to his flat. Chagla remarked that Zafrullah’s parsimony was not the result of any desire to leave a large fortune behind bin. He spent all the money he had in the interest of the cause to which he was dedicated, the welfare of the Ahmedia sect of Muslims to which he belonged. He spent as little as possible on himself, so that he could save as much as possible for his sect. He even had put up a mosque for the benefit of his sect at The Hague.

Q. Named the intimate friends of M.C. Chagla in the international court and also tell their characteristics.

Ans. Two of Chagla’s most intimate friends were Zorisic, who came from Yugoslavia and Armand-Ugon who represented Uruguay. All three of them stayed in the same hotel, “Hotel Des Indes”, and always used to meet after dinner to drink a liquor and smoke cigar. Zorisic was a very learned man and knew several languages. Armand was also a good lawyer but he did not know a word of English. Chagla’s own French was very poor, and it was a difficult linguistic exercise for all three to carry on conversation between them. But they seem to have managed all the same. Language was a great problem at The Hague. A majority of the judges did not know English but knew French, while the Russian Judge Kokevnav, knew neither English nor French.

Q. Explain the verdict of the India-Portugal case?

Ans. In this case, the Court had to first decide the six preliminary objections raised by India to the complaint brought by Portugal. The preliminary hearing lasted from September 23 to October 11, 1957. The case for India was argued by Mr. Setalvad, who was Attorney-General of India. He was assisted by Sir Frank Soskice, Q.C., M.P. and Prof. Waldock, Professor of Public & International Law at Oxford. Setalvad’s arguments were to the point. and without any artifices or embellishments which often characterise the arguments of those who rely on them to bolster up a weak case. Chagla’s colleagues were very impressed by the way Setalvad presented the Indian case.

The result of the hearing was that the Court decided against India on the first four preliminary objections which India had taken, while the fifth and sixth preliminary objections were made to stand over to the final hearing. Chagla delivered a dissenting judgement upholding all the objections except one. His Russian colleague went a step further, and voted in favour of India on all the preliminary objections. He wanted to demonstrate the solidarity that existed between the U.S.S.R. and India, but Chagla’s judicial conscience did not permit him to vote in favour of India at least on one preliminary objection. But even as the arguments proceeded, it was clear that the Court would not put an end to Portugal’s claim at that stage, but would have to proceed to a final hearing on merits.

After the preliminary hearing Chagla returned to Bombay to resume his duties as Chief Justice. When Chagla was appointed as Ambassador to the United States, he wrote to the Prime Minister tendering his resignation as an ad hoc judge, pointing out that as he was now proceeding to Washington, it would not be proper for him to continue in that judicial capacity. The Prime Minister forwarded his resignation to the International Court. Klaestad, who had by then become the President of the Court, wrote to Nehru that Chagla had been doing very useful work in the Court and that Chagla should continue as an ad-hoc judge, and should not be displaced by someone else. Nehru changed his mind, and decided that in view of the opinion expressed by the President of the Court, Chagla should go to The Hague for the public hearing from Washington.

The result was that Chagla continued as an ad hoc judge for the public hearing which took place in September, October and part of November, 1959. India was again represented by Setalvad, further strengthened by Prof. Henri Rolin, a well-known Professor of International law in Brussels and Prof. Guggenheim from Geneva. On the side of Portugal, among others, was Prof. Bourquin, also a professor at Geneva. It was the proud boast of both Guggenheim and Bourquin that neither of them had ever lost a case before the International Court. In this case they were pitted against each other and one or the other would have to spoil his record.

As is not uncommon in international affairs, when the decision came, both sides claimed victory, although, it was India that was victorious since it successfully repelled the most substantial claim made by Portugal, that Portugal, had the right of passage from Daman to Dadra and Nagar Haveli in respect of armed forces, armed police and arms and ammunitions. This claim was rejected by right votes to seven and the only right that was conceded to Portugal was the right of passage in respect of private persons, civil officials and goods in general. This right, the Court also ruled by nine votes to six, India had not violated.

Q. Why was South-West Africa renamed by United Nations?

Ans. The League of Nations had given a mandate in respect of South-West Africa to the Union of South Africa, and when the League of Nations was dissolved and the United Nations came into existence, the United Nations rightly took the view that South Africa was accountable to that organisation for the mandate and for the administration of South-West Africa.

The mandate clearly laid down that South West Africa was to be governed in accordance with accepted civilised principles, and in the interest of the people of the territory, and also for the purpose of ultimately enabling the country to achieve self-government. South Africa threw all the civilised principles to the winds, segregated the people, and proceeded to enforce in its administration of the territory, the abominable policy of apartheid.

The United Nations strongly objected to this, terminated the mandate of South Africa, and formally took over the administration of South-West Africa which was re-named Namibia. South Africa defied the decision of the United Nations, refused to hand over administration to that body, and claimed that by virtue of the mandate which had been given by the League of Nations, it had the right to administer and govern South-West Africa.

Q. Describe M.C. Chagla’s views on emergency, as expressed in his autobiography?

Ans. M.C. Chagla describes the period of Internal Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 26 June 1975 as the “darkest hour” in Indian history. In his book ‘Roses in December’, he strongly criticizes the Emergency and considers it one of the gravest attacks on democracy and individual freedom in independent India. The Emergency lasted for about twenty months and, according to Chagla, brought fear, oppression, and injustice throughout the country.

Chagla believed that two important events led to the declaration of Emergency. The first was the victory of the Janata Party in the Gujarat elections, which weakened the political position of Mrs. Gandhi. The second was the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which found Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt electoral practices. According to Chagla, instead of resigning and respecting democratic traditions, she imposed the Emergency in order to retain power.

As soon as the Emergency was declared, opposition leaders were arrested during the night and thousands of political workers were imprisoned. Press censorship was imposed on an unprecedented scale, and citizens lost their fundamental freedoms. Chagla points out that Presidential Orders suspended important Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. Even the right to approach courts through writs such as habeas corpus was taken away.

Chagla writes that the country was suddenly covered with an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. The names and whereabouts of detainees were often not disclosed, and people had no legal remedy against unlawful detention. According to him, “darkness swept over the country,” and the people were left without hope or freedom. He believed that there was actually no serious internal disturbance in the country that justified such drastic action.

Chagla was deeply disturbed by the misuse of constitutional powers during this period. He held Mrs. Gandhi mainly responsible for the suffering, injustice, and suppression faced by the people under the Emergency. He considered the entire period shameful for Indian democracy and felt that democratic institutions were weakened severely.

Even after the Emergency ended, Chagla observed that Indira Gandhi never openly admitted her mistake or expressed regret for the hardships caused to the people. Instead, she attempted to justify the Emergency and defend her actions. Chagla strongly disagreed with this attitude and believed that the people of India had suffered greatly because of authoritarian rule.

Thus, M.C. Chagla called the Emergency the “darkest hour” because it destroyed civil liberties, weakened democracy, suppressed freedom of expression, and created an atmosphere of fear and oppression in the country. In his view, it was one of the most painful and unfortunate periods in the history of independent India.