One of the most sensational criminal cases in the history of Madras high court was also most unusual and somewhat distinctive and even distinguished because of the person who was the accused. He was no professional killer. He did not belong to a tribe condemned as criminals regarding who during the British Rule of India an Act was on the statute under the name 'The Criminal Tribes Act.' No. He was not a primitive tribal. Nor did he commit the crime out of sexual provocation, sudden or grave! No. Indeed he was a judge at the Madras high court who sat on the Bench for about four or five years.
He qualified himself in England to join the Indian Civil Service (ICS) and opted for judicial service. He was the District and Sessions judge for several years in many places like Trichy and was elevated to the high court in January 1942. That was not all. The British Government bestowed on him the title of CBE (Companion of the British Empire).
In spite of them, all he figured and appeared as accused in a case of culpable homicide when the freedom struggle was at its height and zooming fast to a climax which resulted in freedom being won after a long battle in August 1947.
The high court judge who stood in the dock of the Chief Presidency Magistrate's court in Egmore was John Austin Byers. Known as 'The Byers Case,' it occupied several columns in newspapers of dailies both in English and Tamil and also Telugu. It was hotly discussed all over the sprawling Madras Presidency and even elsewhere by lawyers, judges, bureaucrats and all the King's men and women! Such was the interest and sensation it generated six decades ago. Not often at least in this country and more so in Madras a judge sworn to protect citizens and dispense justice according to law stands accused of a serious crime of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Somewhat sadly, even lawyers of this generation know little or less about this case of considerable importance in high court's history.
Justice Byers was a person of strong likes and dislikes, prejudices and phobias and was thoroughly anti-Indian, a feeling he did little to hide during his life in the Madras Presidency. That was not all. He was often found sleeping in court while he was hearing cases which provoked the legendary lawyer of Madras, one of the fabulous figures of his day, V.V. Srinivasa Ayyangar to react in writing. In the editorial in the prominent legal magazine ' Law Weekly, 'Signor Vivius' (one of his pen names!), a master of many languages, with a bubbling sense of humor, he described the judge's habit of hearing cases with “ wakeful attention”. However, not many were aware that one of his kidneys had been removed and living with one kidney placed him in the state of disadvantage health-wise which perhaps was the reason for his dozing off on the Bench during hearings.
He created much dislike among legal practitioners of Madras by his conduct in cases before him. Even as the Distinct and Sessions judge, he strongly relied on case-diaries submitted by police even though truth was often a casualty in such documents. Certainly, he did not endear himself to lawyers appearing before him. He also figured marginally in the sensational Lakshmikantham murder case that rocked South India during early 1940s. When the legendary mega star of Tamil cinema, and cult figure M .K. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar was arrested for his alleged involvement in the murder of Lakshmikantham, Ethiraj filed the bail application before Justice M.Pathanjali Sastry and as the Madras high court was on Christmas vacation, interestingly the application was argued by Ethiraj at the bungalow of the judge on Luz Church Road, Mylapore. With his persuasive eloquence Ethiraj had his way and got Bhagavathar released on bail.
During February 1945, the Crown Prosecutor filed a petition for cancellation of the bail and it came up for hearing before Justice Byers now. V.V. Srinivasa Ayyangar appeared for Bhagavathar and argued for nearly three hours opposing the cancellation. Interestingly, he argued that a legal point about granting bail, which had been decided in a judgment of the Madras high court, was wrong even though Ayyangar was the high court judge who gave such ruling years ago!
(To be continued, The writer is a renowned Tamil film historian)
