Short Biography of H.M. Seerval
Answers
Answered by
0
Hormasji "Homi" Maneckji Seervai (1906–1996) was an Indian eminent jurist, lawyer and author. He is also considered to be a renowned Constitutional expert, and his works are cited popularly in various Indian cases as well as journals.
Seervai was born on 5 December 1906 in Bombay (present-day Mumbai) in a middle class Parsi family. He matriculated from Bhada New High School, Mumbai and in 1922 joined Elphinstone College, Bombay from where he graduated with a first class degree in philosophy. He received his law degree from Government Law College, Mumbai.
Seervai was called to the bar in 1929. In 1932, he joined the Chambers of Sir Jamshedji Behramji Kanga.[1] Seervai served as Advocate General of Bombay from 1957 to 1960 and Maharashtra from 1960 until his resignation in 1974. During those years, he was offered various other positions in the Indian judicial system, including a seat on the Indian Supreme Court and as Attorney General for India. He declined these positions preferring to contribute through critical analysis of higher court judgements. He had an effortless command of the English language and its classics.[2]
His first chance in the Supreme Court of Indiaarose in a defence of the Government of Bombay's decision to ban prize competitions, in the nature of lotteries. Seervai's argument was rewarded with spectacular success. The judgments and orders of the Bombay courts were unanimously set aside with costs.[3]
Those who are familiar with the legal profession know that his 3 volume work on Constitutional Law is the finest work on the subject and if an Indian advocate is well versed in it, he is automatically considered worthy of respect. Seervai was a man above all dedicated to truth and justice. This is precisely why he earned the respect of his colleagues, clients and readers alike.
Keshavananda Bharati vs the State of Kerala 1973, perhaps is a case the full repercussions of which have not yet completely been understood but which stands as the defining and distinguishing part of democracy under the written constitution vs. the British model. The decision in this matter established that a legislature, elected for the legislative process, does not have the ability to amend the basic structure of the constitution.
Seervai was born on 5 December 1906 in Bombay (present-day Mumbai) in a middle class Parsi family. He matriculated from Bhada New High School, Mumbai and in 1922 joined Elphinstone College, Bombay from where he graduated with a first class degree in philosophy. He received his law degree from Government Law College, Mumbai.
Seervai was called to the bar in 1929. In 1932, he joined the Chambers of Sir Jamshedji Behramji Kanga.[1] Seervai served as Advocate General of Bombay from 1957 to 1960 and Maharashtra from 1960 until his resignation in 1974. During those years, he was offered various other positions in the Indian judicial system, including a seat on the Indian Supreme Court and as Attorney General for India. He declined these positions preferring to contribute through critical analysis of higher court judgements. He had an effortless command of the English language and its classics.[2]
His first chance in the Supreme Court of Indiaarose in a defence of the Government of Bombay's decision to ban prize competitions, in the nature of lotteries. Seervai's argument was rewarded with spectacular success. The judgments and orders of the Bombay courts were unanimously set aside with costs.[3]
Those who are familiar with the legal profession know that his 3 volume work on Constitutional Law is the finest work on the subject and if an Indian advocate is well versed in it, he is automatically considered worthy of respect. Seervai was a man above all dedicated to truth and justice. This is precisely why he earned the respect of his colleagues, clients and readers alike.
Keshavananda Bharati vs the State of Kerala 1973, perhaps is a case the full repercussions of which have not yet completely been understood but which stands as the defining and distinguishing part of democracy under the written constitution vs. the British model. The decision in this matter established that a legislature, elected for the legislative process, does not have the ability to amend the basic structure of the constitution.
Similar questions