One morning, as I was preparing to leave for court, I received a telephone call. To my surprise, the caller was Padma Nabh Mishra, the then home secretary to Government of Orissa. He informed me that he wanted to meet me at my residence in connection with some urgent work. I had no other option but to tell him to come down to my Kafla house. In about 15–20 minutes, he reached my house. When I asked him the reason for such urgency, he informed me that he had come to me to discuss the matter of parole of D.B.M. Patnaik, which was listed on the agenda of the court that day and I was supposed to appear for the state government. D.B.M. Patnaik was an advocate practising at Gunpur, his home town. He had been kept in jail on account of some allegation of Naxalite activity, and while in jail, his son had committed suicide for which a parole application had been made. Mr Mishra then told me that the chief minister (CM), Mrs Satpathy, was desirous of getting Mr Patnaik’s parole granted, but the instruction from the government was in the negative, with a detailed report about Mr Patnaik’s Naxalite activity, describing him as one of the deadliest Naxalites who should never be released. In those days, the Naxalite movement was quite active, particularly in Bengal. Mr Mishra’s confession made my job easy, since I was of the same view, so I told him that I would tell the court that government had no objection if parole was granted. But there was a problem, the home secretary replied that if parole was granted on the CM’s request, the Indira Gandhi government would replace her the next day. Therefore, the job had to be done tactfully so that it would appear the government protested and yet the court granted the parole. Since I was the standing counsel, who was the third law officer in rank, I told the home secretary that it was beyond my power and maybe the advocate general could help. I then accompanied the home secretary to the residence of the advocate general, Mr Rath. However, he, too, said that he would not be able to argue the matter and I should submit before the court whatever I thought was best. On our way to court, I told Mr Mishra that in such a sensitive matter it may not be appropriate to concede that parole be granted.

Having reached the court, we rushed to court of Justice K.B. Panda before whom the matter had been listed. The counsel for the petitioner was Mr Prabir Palit, who was also a member of Communist Party of India and a friend of Mr Patnaik. He argued that parole should be granted on humanitarian consideration. The court asked for my response. I began submitting about his Naxalite activities, which had been given to me by the government. Mr Palit then interjected that the state counsel should take instructions from the government. The court, therefore, adjourned the matter till the next day. I found the home secretary waiting in my chamber when I returned from court during mid-day recess. He further told me that under no circumstances could the government give instruction in writing that the petitioner should be granted parole but urged me to find a way for the sake of the CM and left my office.

In the evening, Mr Rath rang me up and requested me to meet him at his residence. It was possible that the CM had told him about this case. I took the file with me and met the advocate general at his residence. He went through the file for about half an hour and told me that I would have to submit the case without conceding in the matter. Returning home, I thought over the matter for quite some time and drafted what I would submit. I remember the same till today and my draft went like this: ‘Having regard to the past antecedents of the petitioner, he ought not to get parole. But since his son has died by suicide, on humanitarian consideration, the court may direct that he should be taken to his home in Gunpur and be kept in Gunpur jail till the 11th day. His family members can meet him in jail as per jail rule between 10 am and 4 pm, and family means his wife and children. On the 11th day, he would be taken to his home, which will be encircled by police force, and he would be made free to perform the rituals. Before 4 pm, he should be brought back to Gunpur Jail and then taken to the jail from which he had been brought.’ I asked my stenographer to make three copies of the same to be kept in relevant files.

On the next day, this was the very first case in the court. As soon as the case was called, I stood up and handed over one copy to the court and other to Mr Palit, and kept the third copy in my hand. The presiding judge went through the same and observed that it was a very fair submission. Mr Palit wanted some modification to which I did not agree. Ultimately, the court dictated the order but instead of the court directing it, the order was ‘Learned standing counsel submits and accordingly I direct.’ Possibly the judge did not want to take the sole responsibility on himself. I, however, did not protest. When I reached my chamber at 1 pm, I found the home secretary waiting in my room. He got up to congratulate me and convey his thanks and told me that the CM was really pleased with the outcome. Before leaving my room, as a token of thanks, he offered to arrange accommodation for me at the Utkal Bhawan at Calcutta or Orissa Bhawan at Delhi whenever I needed it. Getting accommodation in both the places was a really difficult job those days, and Mr Mishra delivered on his promise every time I approached him.

However, the matter wasn’t closed even after a court order for parole. That afternoon, I received at least 4–5 telephone calls from high-ranking police officers asking me as to why parole had been granted, for, according to them, Mr Patnaik was a dangerous man at risk of flight. Even the last telephone call I got from the inspector general of police was to the same effect, to which I replied, ‘If our police are so inefficient, better we should not have the force.’ The consequence of this reply was that the Intelligence branch gave a report against me stating, ‘Has strong leaning towards Naxalite, helped dreaded Naxalite leader D.B.M. Patnaik.’ This I discovered only in 1983 when my name was recommended for the position of a judge of Orissa High Court.

[Niyogi Books has given Fair Observer permission to publish this excerpt from The Gown and The Gavel: Life Journey of a Former Chief Justice of India, GB Patnaik, Niyogi Books, 2025.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.