To Be or Not To Be: When Indian Courts turn to Shakespeare

Shakespeare's influence extends far beyond the realm of literature and theatre. His works have been quoted and adapted to suit diverse contexts, demonstrating the enduring power of his works.

While films like Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet", Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" and Joel Coen's "The Tragedy of Macbeth" are direct adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays, his plots and characters have inspired countless films and TV shows, even if they don't explicitly acknowledge the connection. For example, "The Lion King" is a loose adaptation of "Hamlet" and the TV series "House of Cards" draws heavily from "Richard III".

In fact, Shakespeare’s characters are so well-defined that they have become archetypes in storytelling. The jealous lover, the ambitious tyrant, the wise fool – these are all character types that Shakespeare helped to establish, and they continue to appear in films and TV shows today.

Shakespeare’s stories resonate today as we grapple with issues of abuse of power and political scandals. His plays explore the corrupting influence of power, as seen in plays like Macbeth and Richard III. Plays like Julius Caesar and Coriolanus examine social unrest and the fragility of political systems. For example, "Et tu, Brute?" from Julius Caesar is often invoked to express betrayal by a close ally. Shakespeare's characters are skilled orators, using rhetoric to persuade, inspire and manipulate. Politicians lean on and learn from these techniques to craft compelling speeches and to engage audiences.

With plays like The Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure delving into the complexities of justice and mercy or the characters of King Lear grappling with questions of justice and morality in the face of unjust laws, it is no surprise to see how Shakespeare's words continue to resonate in modern courtrooms. This article focuses on some specific examples across different legal areas, showcasing the breadth of his influence.

R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) was a famous case about cannibalism at sea which involved the defense of necessity. While not directly quoting Shakespeare, the judges referenced ethical dilemmas found in his plays to discuss the complexities of moral choices in extreme circumstances. Shakespeare was once again in the thick of things in the case of People v. Gorshen (1959) which involved a defendant who claimed insanity after killing his wife. The court quoted Hamlet ["What a piece of work is a man..."] to discuss the nature of human reason and mental capacity.

Shakespeare's influence on Indian court judgments is a fascinating example of how literature can intersect with law. His references in Indian judgments add a layer of literary depth to legal reasoning. The Comedy of Errors ["A man is master of his liberty"] was quoted by the Supreme Court of India in Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs State Of Manipur And Ors (2010) 9 SCC 618 to emphasize the importance of individual liberty.

The judgment of Shayara Bano v Union of India & Ors AIR 2017 SC 4609 which dealt with the constitutionality of the practice of "triple talaq" drew parallels with Shakespearean characters like Shylock [from The Merchant of Venice] to discuss issues of discrimination and inequality within religious communities.  

In the case of Adelaide Mande Tobias v William Albert Tobias AIR 1968 Cal 133, Justice PB Mukharji quoted the phrase "For the apparel oft proclaims the man" to illustrate how a woman's attire in contemporary society may not accurately reflect her character or morals.

Shakespeare's enduring relevance was evident when the line "Justice should be tempered with mercy" from his play The Merchant of Venice was cited by Justice Ram Bhawan Misra in the case of Ajai Shanker Pandey v Union of India 2005(5) AWC 2951 All. The case involved a police constable dismissed from service for consuming liquor.

Shakespeare's tragedies are also not left behind. Othello, the Moor of Venice was central to the judgment in Alli Noushad v Rasheed & Ors 2922 CriLJ 3023 to illustrate the theme of jealousy and suspicion.

Even less frequently cited plays like King John offer legal insights - a speech by the dying character Melun was quoted in Amar Singh v State of U.P 2010 (70) AC 99 to explain the concept of a dying declaration.

It seems Indian courts have a flair for the dramatic, frequently turning to the bard himself to add a touch of literary spice to their judgments. Shakespeare, one might say, is not just for the stage anymore, but for the legal stage as well! Take, for instance, the case of Amina Nahna v State of Kerala 2011(3) KLT 753, where the entrance exam to medical colleges was such a mess that Justice Antony Dominic declared "Chaos is come again!" [clearly channeling his inner Othello].

And in the case of Ananda Sahu v State of Orissa 83 (1997) CLT 258, Justice PK Misra, with a flourish of "What's in a name?" pondered over the importance of correctly spelling a village name.

Then there's Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd. v Sri Lakshmi Ganesh Cotton Ginning Mill 1996 (1) ALT 537, where the defendant, like a true Portia, declared "Not a drop of blood!" (of, er, money) would be paid in interest. A bold legal strategy, though perhaps lacking in the original's dramatic flair.

Finally, in Anil Kohli v Executive Officer Municipal Council AIR 2000 J&K 57, Justice AM Mir declared "Leave unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and leave unto God what belongs to Him," essentially telling a judge to mind his own jurisdiction. Clearly, when it comes to legal drama, Shakespeare provides the perfect lines.

And the legal world's love affair with Shakespeare doesn't stop there! In a heart-wrenching case [Bhiputi Charan Mohanty v State of Odisha 2024 (I) OLR 379] involving the death of a child from a dog attack, Justice Dr. BR Sarangi evoked Hamlet's famous line: "When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions."

When faced with the age-old criticism of the legal profession in Damordass Agarwal & Ors v R. Badrilal & Ors AIR 1987 AP 254, Justice P Kodanda Ramaiah, perhaps with a touch of self-deprecating humor, quoted Dick the Butcher from Henry VI, Part 2: "The first thing we do, let us kill all the lawyers."

Love, too, finds its way into the courtroom, as seen in Dasgupta v Inspector of Police C.A No. 375 of 1998 Madras High Court, where a love triangle turned deadly. Here, Justice M Chockalingam, channeling Shakespeare's romantic comedies, observed, "The love at the first sight and the lust at the first thought will have inevitable consequences."

But it's not all love and games. In Fathima Bibi & Ors v Selvammal & Ors C.R.P No. 3506 of 1981 Madras High Court, a case highlighting the deeply ingrained inequality faced by women in Indian society, Justice S Mohan solemnly quoted Henry VI, Part 1: "She's beautiful and therefore, to be wooed; She's a woman, therefore to be won”.

Love and deceit also find expression through Shakespearean quotes. In Neetu & Ors v State of U.P & Ors 2013 (10) ADJ 420, a case where lovers were exploited for financial gain, Justice Pankaj Mithal cited The Merchant of Venice: "Love is blind and lovers cannot see the pretty follies that themselves commit."

Even the hallowed halls of academia are not immune to Shakespearean scrutiny. In Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil & Ors v Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors AIR 1987 SC 294, allegations of irregularities in a medical examination prompted Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji to quote Hamlet: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

In a fascinating example of Shakespeare being used to illustrate contemporary political intrigue, Justice Jaspal Singh of the Delhi High Court in PV Narsimha Rao v Central Bureau of Investigation 1997 VAD (Delhi) 265 invoked the bard's words to describe an alleged exchange of money for votes in the Indian Parliament. Drawing from Henry V, he quoted:

"This unworthy scaffold... the vasty fields of France...

Within this Wooden O the very casques That did affright the air at Agincourt" 

He likened the house of MP Ajit Singh to Shakespeare's "Wooden O," the Globe Theatre, suggesting it was a stage for a scandalous transaction that "did affright the air" at the headquarters of prominent political figures, PV Narsimha Rao and Bhajan Lal. This creative use of Shakespeare highlights how the bard's words can lend a sense of drama and historical weight even to modern political controversies.

It seems Shakespeare's influence on Indian jurisprudence is more than just a fleeting fancy. It is a testament to the enduring power of his words, his understanding of human nature, and his ability to capture the essence of complex emotions and situations. While some may scoff at the use of "old-fashioned" language in the modern legal world, perhaps there's something to be said for injecting a bit of poetry and drama into the often dry and technical world of law.

After all, as Shakespeare himself wrote, "the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king." And who knows, a well-placed Shakespearean quote may catch the conscience of a judge, the opposing counsel, or even the parties. In the grand theater of justice, it seems, the bard still has a role to play.

About the author: Gurinder Pal Singh is the Founder & Managing Partner of Gurinder & Partners.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.