This Content Downloaded From 52.172.201.146 On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 08:04:45 UTC
This Content Downloaded From 52.172.201.146 On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 08:04:45 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian Law Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Indian Law Institute
by
appeared to be necessary, reference has been made to the Patent Rolls at the Record
Office in London."
2. Colonel Clive's letter to the Right Hon'ble William Pitt, 7 January, 1759.
3. As to the grant of the dewanee , see post .
4. The Governor and Select Committee at Fort William in their letter to
Directors dated 16 January, 1767.
5. Select Committee in their Consultations, 10 September, 1766.
6. General Letter to Bengal from the Court of Directors, 11 November, 1768.
7. Case of Joseph Fowke, Francis Fowke, Maharaja Nuncomar and Roy
Radha Churn for a conspiracy against Warren Hastings, Esq., and the case of
Joseph Fowke, Maharaja Nuncomar, and Roy Radha Churn for a conspiracy against
Richard Barwell.
8. Sir Courtenay libert, The Government of India, 3d ed., 1915, Historical Introduc-
tion, Chapter I, A Digest of the Law Relating to the Government of India, page 1 .
1600-1765
11. The chief privilege of the London East-India Company was the exclusive
right of trading between geographical limits which were practically the Gape of Good
Hope on the one hand and the Straits of Magellan on the other. ' By virtue of our
Prerogative Royal, which we will not in that behalf have argued or brought in
question the Queen straitly charged and commanded her subjects not to infringe
the privileges granted by her to the Company, upon pain of forfeitures and other
penalties. In 1693 however Parliament formally declared the exercise of this un-
questionable prerogative to be illegal as transcending the powers of the Grown. But#
as apart from the constitutionality, the expediency of granting a trade monopoly was
not doubted, until the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was in the nineteenth
century that the trade monopoly of the East-India Company was considered to have
outlived the conditions out of which it arose.
The Company might also lawfully impose, ordain, limit and pro-
vide such pains, punishments, and penalties^by imprisonment of body,
or by fines and amerciaments, or by all or any of them, upon and
against all offenders as might seem necessary or convenient for obser-
vation of these laws and ordinances. But their laws and punishments
were to be reasonable, and not contrary or repugnant to the laws,
statutes, or customs of the English realm.
13. The charters of 23 February, 1604 (1 James I), 5 January, 1607 (4 James I),
and 8 February, 1608 (5 James I) were licences to transport foreign money and silver,
in continuation and extension of the similar privileges contained in the Charter of
43 Elizabeth, that is, of 31 December, 1600. Twenty-four Charters were granted
between the years 1609 and 1639. See also post.
14. The Charter granted to the Company on 27 March, 1669 (20 Charles II)
empowered them to make laws for the better Government of the Port and Island of
Bombay and carry the same into Execution.
15. As Sir Gourtenay libert explains at page 14 of his book, the double date of
1622/1623 indicates a reference to the three months, January, February and March,
which according to the Old Style closed the year, while under the New Style, intro-
duced in 1751 by the Act 24 Geo. II. c. 23, they began the new year. See The Calendar
(New Style) Act, 1750.
16. The joint-stock principle was recognised by giving each member one vote
for every £ 500 subscribed by him to the Company's stock. Prior to this
Charter of 13 Charles II, Charters had been granted also on 4 December, 1611
(8 James I), 4 February, 1622 (20 James I), 17 August, 1626 (2 Charles I), and 1657
(granted by Cromwell). According to John Shaw, the Charter obtained by the
Company from Cromwell in 1657 is not traceable. Then there were the Charters of
6 February, 1668 (20 Charles II), 7 October, 1673 (24 Charles II), Grant of money
to the Company out of customs dated 7 October, 1673 (24 Charles II), Charters of
27 October, 1674 (25 Charles II), 13 March, 1674 (26 Charles II), Warrants of
21 October, 1677 (28 Charles II), 24 January, 1677 (29 Charles II), 22 November,
1678 (30 Charles II). For various charters, grants and warrants of a minor impor-
tance see John Shaw, op. cit., pages 287-290. See also post. As to the chronology of
the Charters herein cited it will be recalled that before the (English) Calendar (New
Style) Act, 1750, the year, according to the Old Style, closed with the months of
January, February and March, and not with December as now. Hence the Charter
of 27 October, 1674, fell within the 25th regnal year of Charles the Second, while that
çf 13 March, 1674, within the 26th.
22. The Grant of 27 March, 1669. This Grant is sometimes referred to as the
Charter of 27 March, 1669 (20 Charles II).
23. In 1687 the East-India Company's factory was moved from Surat to
Bombay.
24. The East-India Company obtained permission to trade to Bengal in 1633, to
the port of Pipley only. In 1642, it was extended to Balasore and Cossimbuzar. In
1699 grants were made to the Company of the towns or villages of Chutanuttee
(Calcutta) and Govindpore. In 1715 the factory at Calcutta, hitherto subordinate
to Madras, was declared an independent presidency.
25. One moiety of the booty taken or seized from the Navob of Bengal, his
allies, soldiers, subjects, adherents and others, by the Company was granted to the
Company by the Charter of 19 September, 1757 (31 Geo. II) under the circumstances
therein mentioned; and on 14 January, 1758, His Majesty granted to the Company all
booty taken by their ships and forces, and the disposal of any fortresses or territories
acquired by them from any of the Indian Provinces or Governments. The Charter of
14 January, 1758, is the last Charter granted directly by the Crown to the Company,
the Commissions issued by His Majesty in 1761 for trying pirates not being
treated as charters. The subsequent Charters establishing Bishops, Supreme Courts,
and the like, were all founded upon Acts of Parliament.
26. The c Orissa ' of the grant corresponded mainly to the modern district of
Midnapur in the State of West Bengal, and should not be confused with the
whole of the modern Orissa, which was not acquired by the Company until 1803
27. See also post .
27a. 'Choultry' meant town house.
28. John Shaw, op. cit., preface, vii.
and for combining their stocks. The London Company were to main-
tain their separate existence for seven years, but the trade of the two
Companies was to be carried on jointly, in the name of the English
Company, but for the common benefit of both, under the direction of
twenty-four managers, twelve to be selected by each Company. At
the end of the seven years the London Company were to surrender
their Charters. The English Company were to continue their trade in
accordance with the provisions of the Charter of 5 September, 1698,
but were to change their name for that of 'The United Company of
Merchants of England, Trading to the East-Indies.' 39
39. For the emergence of the name of ,ť The United Company of Merchants of
England, Trading to the East-Indies " see page 196, ibid .
40. This Act (11 and 12 Will. Ill c. 4) was a private Act for continuing the
Governor and Company of Merchants of London, trading to the East-Indies. See
Statutes at Large , London, 1769, vol. IV, Index.
41. For Queen Anne's acceptance of the surrender of the Charters of the Gover-
nor and Company of Merchants of London, Trading into the East-Indies on 7 May,
1709, see John Shaw, op. cit., p. 229.
42. See The Law relating to India and the East- India Company , 4th ed., 1842,
pages 11-12#
43. Section XI of 17 Geo. II. c. 17. See Statutes at Large , London, 1769, vol.
VI, 534-541.
44. The Company's Indian Army was first established at Madras in 1748. At
the same time a small European force was also raised. The nucleus of a European
force had however been formed at Bombay in 1669. An Act of 1754 (27 Geo. II. c. 9)
as amended by another Act passed in 1760 (Geo. III. c. 14) laid down for the Indian
forces of the Company provisions corresponding to those embodied in the annual
English Mutiny Acts. The Charter of 19 September, 1757, (31 George II), recited,
inter alia, that One Moiety of all plunder and booty ' which shall be taken from
the Moors ' should be set apart for the use of the captors, and that the other
Moiety thereof should be deposited till the pleasure of the Crown should be known.
The Charter went on to grant this reserved moiety to the company, except any
part thereof which might have been taken from any of the King's subjects ; (ibid.,
second paragraph). This Charter also authorised the United Company of Mer-
chants of England, Trading to the East-Indies, to take one Moiety of all the booty
or plunder, etc., which had been or might be taken, or seized, from the Nabob
oí Bengal, or any of the forces employed by him, or on his behalf, or from any
of his subjects, allies or adherents. See also the Charter granted to the Company
on 14 January, 1758. For military forces - King s and Company's, see Peter Auber,
op. cit., 438-507.
45. The Charter of 24 September, 1726.
46. The Charter of 1726 was surrendered on the grant of the subsequent Charter
of 1753.
47. See Patra, The Administration of Justice under the East-India Company in Bengal,
Bihar and 0 rissa, 1962, Section VIII : Laws in Operation. See also Patra, the Journal
of the Indian Law Institute, July-September, 1962, Historical Background of the Indian
Contract Act , 1872 .
48. Mayor of Lyons v. East-India Company (1836-37) 1 Moo. I.A. 175, 271. Webbe
v. Lester (1864-66) 2 Bom. H.C.R. 2d. ed. vol. 2, 56, 60. Anandrav v. Ravji Dashrath
(1864-66) 2 Bom. H.C.R. 214, 218. jfuttendromohun Tagore v. Ganendromohun Tagore
(1872-73) I.A. Supplemental 47, 64. Param Shook Doss v. Rasheed Ood Dowlah (1871-
74) 7 Mad. H.C.R. 285, 287. Khusalchand v. Mahadevgiri (1875) 12 Bom. H.C.R. 214,
216. Dorab Ally Khanv.Abdool Azeez (1877-78) 5 I.A. 1 16, 126. Mithibai v. Limji
Nowroji Banaji (1881) 5 Bom. 506. Parvathi v. Mannar (1885) 8 Mad. 175, 178.
Lopez v. Lopez (1886) 12 Cal. 706. Waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masludin (1886-87) 14
I.A. 89, 96. Bhagwat Dayal v. Debi Dayal (1907-8) 35 I.A. 48. Mahomed Musa v.
Aghore Kumar Ganguli (1914-15) 42 I.A. 1, 8. Debnarayan Duttv. Chunilal Ghose (1914)
41 Cal. 137. Kerwick v. Kerwick (1919-20) 47 I A. 275. Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad
Zaman (1924-25) 52 I.A. 61, 67. Chhatra Kumari v. Mohan Bikram Shah (1930-31) 58 I.A.
279, 297. Kshirodebihari Datta v. Mangobinda Panda (1934) 61 Cal. 841.
49. For the guidance of the Courts established by the Royal Charter of 24
September, 1726, detailed instructions entitled "Instructions for putting in Execu-
tion the East India Company's Charter were sent to Fort William. See para. 11
of the Court of Directors' Letter to Bengal, 17 February, 1748/1749. See also the
Manuscript Proceedings of the Mayor's Court at Calcutta dated 20 July, 1749.
50. The Charters of 31 December, 1600; 31 May, 1609 ; 3 April, 1661; 27
March, 1669; 9 August, 1683; and 7 October, 1693; 13 Geo. III. c. 63; 37 Geo.
III. c. 142; and 47 Geo. III. Sess. 2. c. 68, for examples.
51. The position was the same beginning from the Charter of 31 December, 1600,
till 3 and 4 William IV. c. 85.
It will be an absurdity to hold that all the statute, case and com-
mon law obtaining at a particular date, whether 1723 or 1753, in
England became proprio vigore also the law of the Presidencies of Fort
William, Fort St. George and Bombay. It will also be unhistorical
and unfunctional, on the other hand, to assert that the said English
laws were not introduced in the Presidencies. The Courts at the three
Presidencies were mostly of the view that English statute case and
common law were introduced in their jurisdictions subject, where
necessary, to modifications. It will be an interesting study, it is believed,
to refer to a few judicial decisions to illustrate the position. Sir William
Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England , London, 1876, 4th
ed., vol. 1, pages 81-82, observed :
" Colonists carry with them only so much of the English law, as is
applicable to their own situation and the condition of an infant colony;
such, for instance, as the general rules of inheritance, and of protection
from personal injures. The artificial refinements and distinctions
were retained.
Nor are there wanting instances in which the laws and usages of
ceded and conquered territories, though inconsistent with or even
52. See the Charter of 1753 ; 21 G^o. HE. c. 70; 37 Geo. III. c. 142 ; Charter
of Justice of the Supreme Court at Madras ; Charter of Justice of the Supreme Court
at Bombay.
53. See Advocate-General of Bengal v. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee (1861-4) 9 Moo.
I.A. 387, 426-427 ; Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Vencata Narrainapah (1859-61) 8
Moo. I.A. 500, 525-27 ; see also ibid., 529»
the laws, but the sovereignty of their own State; and those who lived
amongst them and became members of their community, became par-
takers of and subject to the same laws. India having been a highly
civilised country, this rule was held as not to have applied to the early
settlement of the English in Indra, as the permission to the settlers to
use their own laws within the factories, did not extend those laws to the
Natives associated with them within the same limits. In Param Shook
Doss v Rashced Ood Dowlah (1871-74) 7 Mad. H.C.R. 285, Kernan, J.,
held, at page 287, that the Lord's Day Act (XXIX Car. 2. c. 7) did
not apply as between natives of India. In Juttendromohun Tagore v.
Ganendromohun Tagore, and viceversa (1872-73) I.A. Supplemental 47,
Mr. Justice Willes recognised, at page 64, the principles of Hindu law
of property as distinct from those of the English Law. In Khusalchand
v. Mahadevgiri (1875) 12 Bom. H.C.R. 214, 216, the English law relating
to superstitious uses was held as not to apply in the case of Hindu
religious endowments. In Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Vencata
Narrainapah (1859-61) 8 Moo. I.A. 500, Knight Bruce, L.Jē, at page
527, however, held that the - general right of the Government by
escheat had been established. See also the second appeal as between
the same parties, at page 529 of the 8 Moo. I.A. In Lopez v. Lopez
(1886) 12 Cal. 706 the customary law of India was allowed to prevail
over the English law of prohibited degrees in marriage.
55. Bom. Reg. IV of 1827, Section 26. Webbe v. Lester (1864-66) Bom. H.C.R,
vol. 2 (2d ed.), 52, 56 I per Couch, J.). Mithibai v. Limji Nowroji Banaji { 1881)5
Bom. 506.
56. Debnarayan Dutt v. Chunilal Ghose (1914) 41 Cal. 137. Kshirodelihari Datta v.
A 1 angohinda Parida (1934) 61 Cal. 841.
57. Mithibai v. Limji JVowroji Banaji (1881) 5 Bom. òUb. W agrieta Kajsanji v. òhekh
Masludin (1886-87) 14 I.A. 89, 96 (Lord Hobhouse, at p. 96).
58. Webbe v. Lester (1864-bb) Bom. H.C.R. vol. 2 {2á ed.), bU (Couch, J.).
59. Chhatra Kumari Devi v. Mohan Bikram Shah (1930-31) 58 I.A. 279 (Sir George
Lowndes at p. 297).
60. Ram Gholam Singh v. Keerut Singh (1825) 4 S.D. A. Rep. 12. Baboo Brijnerain
Singh v. Raja Teknerain Singh (1836) 6 S.D. A. Rep. 131. Mt. Zuhwwonnusa Khanum v.
Raseek Lai Mitter (1840) 6 S.D. A. Rep. 298.
61. Moulovee Syud Ashruf Ali v. Mirza Kasim (1820) 3 S.D.A. Rep. 49. Mirza
Beebee v. Toola h ee'oee (1829; 4 S.D.A. Rep 334. ML Hingoo v. Meer Furzund Ali
(1828) 4 S.D.A. Rep. 307. Hidaiet Ali Khan v. Hissam AL Khan (1839) 6 S.D.A.
Rep. 257.
62. Sir James W. Colvile, at page 126.
63. Bhagwat Dayal v. Debi Dayal (1907-8) 35 I.A. 48 (Sir Arthur Wilson,
at p. 56).
64. Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, at page 8.
65. Anandrau v. Ravji Dashrath (1864-66) 2 Bom. H.C.R. 214 (Newton, J.
p. 218).
66. Kerwick v. Kerwick (1919-20) 47 I.A. 275.
67. Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zaman (1924-25) 52 I.A. 61 (Lord Dunedin ,
p. 67).
1765-1858
the Exchequer an annual sum of £400, 000 for two years from 1 Febru-
ary, 1767, and in consideration of this payment were allowed to retain
their territorial acquisitions and revenues for the same period.73 The
State of England thus claimed its share of the Indian spoil, and
asserted its rights to control the sovereignty of Indian territories. In
1769 an agreement was made by Parliament with the East-India
Company for five years, during which time the Company were guarante-
ed the territorial revenues, but were bound to pay an annuity of
£400,000, and to export a specified quantity of British goods.74
13 Geo. III. c. 64 also required the Company to export to the British
settlements within their limits British goods of a specified value. In
the spring session of 1772 a select committee of inquiry was appointed
by the House of Commons. In November, 1772, Parliament appointed
a new committee with instructions to hold a secret inquiry into the
Company's affairs.
73. See Peter Auber, Analysis of the Constitution of the East-India Company , 1826,
713-715.
74. 1772-73.
75. Under the (English) Short Titles Act, 1896, this Act has been given the title
of The East India Company Act, 1772. This Act of 1773 is described in its ťshort
title' as an Act of 1772 because Acts then dated from the beginning of the session in
which they were passed. See The Short Titles Act, 1896 (59 and 60 Vict. c. 14), First
Schedule.
to the laws of the English realm, and to set, impose, inflict, and levy
reasonable fines and forfeitures for their breach. But these rules and
regulations were not to be valid until duly registered and published in
the Supreme Court at Calcutta,76 with the assent and approbation of
the Court, and they might, in effect, be set aside by the King in
Council. A copy of them was to be kept affixed conspicuously in the
India House, and copies were also to be sent to a Secretary of State.
The Act of 1781 (21 Geo. III. c. 70) empowered the governor-
general and council ťfrom time to time to frame regulations for the
provincial courts and councils. Copies of these regulations were to be
sent to the Court of Directors and to the Secretary of State. They
might be disallowed or amended by the King in Council, but were to
remain in force unless disallowed within two years.
The Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III. Sess. 2, c. 24) established a board
of six commissioners, who were formally styled the 'Commissioners for
the Affairs of India' but were popularly known as the Board of
76. The Supreme Court at Calcutta was constituted under the Charter of Justice
dated 26 March, 1774. The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay were respectively
established under 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 79 and 4 Geo. IV. c. 71. The Charter for
Madras, Supreme Court was granted in December, 1801. The Indian Bishops and
Courts Act, 1823 (4 Geo. IV, c. 71). S. 7, authorised His Majesty, by Charter of Letters
Patent, to erect and establish a Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay. Earlier,
the Recorder's Courts at Madras and Bombay were constituted under 37 Geo, III,
c. 142. The High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were constituted in 1862
under 24 and 25 Vict. c. 104.
Many of the provisions of the Act of 1784 (24 Geo. Ill sess. 2,
c. 25) were re-enacted in the subsequent Acts of 1793, 1813 and 1833.
The elaborate system of checks and counter checks as introduced by
the Act of 1784, though modified in details, remained substantially in
force until 1858.
In 1786 an Act (26 Geo. III. c. 16) was passed empowering the
governor-general in special cases to override the majority of his council
and act on his own responsibility, and enabling the offices of governor-
general and commander-in-chief to be united in the same person. The
exceptional powers given to the governor-general by the Act of 1786
were reproduced in the Act of 1793 (33 Geo. III. c. 52). By another
Act of 1786 (26 Geo. III. c. 25) the provision requiring the approbation
of the King for the choice of governor-general was repealed. The
Crown however still retained the power of recall. A third Act of 1786
(26 Geo. III. c. 57) repealed the provisions requiring servants of the
Company to disclose the amount of property brought home by them.
By 28 Geo. III. c. 8, the directors were required to lay annually
before Parliament an account of the Company's receipts and disburse-
ments.
The Act of 1793 (33 Geo. III. c. 52) was a measure of consolidation,
repealing several previous enactments. Under the Act of 1793, the
procedure in the councils of the three presidencies was regulated, the
powers of control exercisable by the governor-general were emphasised
and explained, and the power of governor-general to override the
majority of his council was repeated77 and extended to the governors
of Madras and Bombay. A series of elaborate provisions continued
the Company's exclusive privileges of trade for a further term of
twenty years, subject to modifications of detail. Another equally
elaborate set of sections regulated the application of the Company's
finances.
An Act of 1807 (47 Geo. Ill, sess. 2, c. 68) gave the governors and
councils at Madras and Bombay the same powers of making regulations,
subject to approval and registration by the Supreme Court at Madras
and the Recorder's Court at Bombay, as had been previously vested
in the Government of Bengal.
77. The overriding power was, in 1786, given to the Governor-General, as noted
before, under 26 Geo. III. c. 16.
The Charter Act of 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85), like that of 1813,
was preceded by careful inquiries into the administration of India. It
introduced important changes into the constitution of the East-India
Company and the system of Indian administration. The territorial
possessions of the Company were allowed to remain under their
government for another term of twenty years ; but were to be held by
the Company cin trust for His Majesty, his heirs and successors for the
service of the Government of India.'79 The Company's monopoly of
the China trade, and of the tea trade, was finally taken away. The
Act of 1833 terminated altogether the trading functions of the
Company. Agra was to be separated as a presidency from that of the
Fort William in Bengal79a. The provisions of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85
for creating a Presidency of Agra, which were suspended by the India
78. Articles 1 and 95 of the 53 Geo. 3, c. 155. The sovereignty of the Grown
had also been clearly reserved in the Charter of 1698.
79. The Act of 1833 expressly enabled any natural-born subject of the Grown to
acquire and hold lands in India.
79-a. The Charter Act, 1383, Section 38.
The Act of 1833 vested the legislative power of the Indian Govern-
ment exclusively in the Governor-General in Council who had been
reinforced by the addition of a fourth legislative member. The
Presidential Governments were merely authorized to submit to the
Governor-General in Council 'drafts or projects of any laws or regula-
tions which they might think expedient', and the Governor-General
in Council was required to take these drafts and projects into considera-
tion and to communicate his resolutions thereon to the Government
proposing them. Legislative power was restored to the Local Govern-
ments of Bombay and Madras in 1861. The Bengal Legislative
Council was also constituted under a Proclamation on 17th January,
1862.80
79-b. The Charter Act, 1853 (16 and 17 Vict. c. 95), S. 15.
80. The provisions of the Indian Council's Act , 1861, touching the making of Laws
and Regulations for the peace and good Government of the Presidencies of Fort St.
George and Bombay, were extended to the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort
William with effect from the 18th day of January, 1862. See Calcutta Gazette, dated,
18 January, 1862. The first meeting of the Council of the Governor of Bengal took
place on 1 February, 1862. See Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, Friday, the
31 January, 1862.
81. Section 53 of the Charter Act of 1833. The members of the Commission
were known as Indian Law Commissioners ; their Chairman was known as the
President. T. B. Macaulay was the first president of the first Indian Law Commission.
The advocates-general of the Hon. the East-India Company in the three Presidencies
were given statutory recognition under 53 Geo. III. c. 155, later, under the Short Titles
Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 14), known as the East India Act, 1813. See ibidĚm Sec-
tions 100 and 111. Under the Government of India Act, 1858, appointments to the
offices of Advocates-General were to be made direct by the Crown.
82. Section 28 of the Charter Act of 1853.
83. Page 8 of the Second Report of the Second Law Commission dated
13 December, 1855; Instructions of the British Government to the Third Law
Commission.
84. Letter of 30 November, 1853, from the Board of Control to the Indian
Law Commission.
85. Oudh was annexed in 1856.
86. 16 and 17 Vict. c. 95.
87. The Act of 1853 reduced the number of the directors of the Company
from twenty-four to eighteen, and provided that six of these should be appointed
by the Crown.
The governor-general.
The commander-in-chief.
The sittings of the legislative council were made public and their
proceedings were officially published.
The right of patronage to Indian appointments was by the Act of
1853 taken away from the Court of Directors and directed to be exer-
cised in accordance with regulations framed by the Board of Control.89
These regulations threw the covenanted civil service open to general
competition.
Provision was made by the Act of 1854 (17 and 18 Vict. c. 77)
empowering the Governor-General of India in Council, with the sanc-
tion of the Court of Directors and the Board of Control, to take by
proclamation under his immediate authority and management any
part of the territories for the time being in the possession or under the
government of the East-India Company, and thereupon to give all
necessary orders and directions respecting the administration of that
part, or otherwise provide for its administration. In exercise of this
power, the Governor -General of India in Council appointed Chief
90. The title of Chief Commissioner was directly recognised by an Act of 1870
(33 and 34 Vict. c. 3, ss. 1, 3).
91. The Chief Commissionership of Assam was abolished in 1908, but restored
in 1912.
92. Jhansi, the Bearars, and Nagpur were annexed in 1853.
93. Rangoon was taken in 1824. Pegu was annexed in 1852. The Chief-
Commissionership of British Burmah was constituted on 31 January, 1862. Upper
Burma was annexed in 1886. Burma was constituted a Lieutenant- Governorship,
with a Legislative Council, in 1897. Burma was separated from India in 1935.
94. The Board of Control established in 1784 under Pitt s Act (24 Geo. III. sess. 2,
C. 25) was formally abolished under the Act of 1858. The Pitt's Act of 1784 was
officially known as the East-India Act, 1 784.
95. In 1859, the Government of India Act, 1859 (22 and 23 Vict. c. 41), was
passed for determining the officers by whom, and the mode in which, contracts
on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council were to be executed in India.
in alliance with Her Majesty. But there were express savings for cer-
tain Parliamentary enactments, for the general authority of Parlia-
ment, and for any part of the unwritten laws or constitution of the
United Kingdom whereon the allegiance of the subject or the sover-
eignty of the Crown might depend.
An exceptional power was given to the governor-general, in cases
of emergency to make, without his council, ordinances, which were
not to remain in force more than six months.
The power of legislation which had been taken away from the
Governments of Madras and Bombay by the Charter Act of 1833 was
restored, as noted before, to them by the Act of 1861. The councils
of the governors of Madras and Bombay were expanded for legislative
The Indian Councils Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 14) ,97 authorised
an increase in the number of the members of the Indian legislative
councils, and empowered the Governor-General in Council, with the
approval of the Secretary of State in Council, to make rules regulating
the conditions under which these members were to be nominated.
The Act of 1892 at the same time relaxed the restrictions imposed by
the Act of 1861 on the proceedings of the legislative councils by enabl-
ing rules to be made authorising the discussion of the annual financial
statement, and the asking of questions, under prescribed conditions
and restrictions. The Act also enabled local legislatures, with the
previous sanction of the Governor-General to repeal or alter Acts of
the Governor-General's council affecting their province.
The Madras and Bombay Armies Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 62),
abolished the offices of commanders-in-chief of the Madras and
97. See also the Indian Councils Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 91) ; the Council of
India Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 7) ; and the Council of India Reduction Act, 1889
(52 & 53 Vict. c. 65).
The Indian Councils Act, 1909 (9 Edw. VII, c. 4), made impor-
tant changes in the constitution and functions of the Indian legislative
councils, and gave power to make changes in the executive govern-
ments of the Indian provinces. The Act received the Royal Assent on
May 25, 1909. Under Section 1 of the Act the c additional 9 members
of the Indian legislative councils, i.e., those other than the members of
the executive councils, would, instead of being all nominated, include
elected members.
98. See also the Indian Councils Act, 1904 (4 Edw. VII, c. 26).
99. The reasons of this revision, and the nature and effect of the changes
made, were explained in a dispatch from the Government of India, dated Janu-
ary 23, 1913, and in an accompanying memorandum. See Blue Book (1913, Gd. 6714).
100. For details see libert, ibid., 113-126.
amendments made by that Act and the Act of 1916 would be incor-
porated in the text of the Government of India Act, 1915, and that
that Act as so amended would be known as the " Government of
India Act The " Government of India Act " was thus not a sep
rate Parliamentary enactment but a properly certified version of t
Act of 1915 as subsequently amended.101
101. A copy of the Government of India Act, 1915, with the amendments,
whether by way of substitution, addition, or omission, required by the Govern
ment of India (Amendment) Act, 1916, and by Section 45 of the Government of
India Act, 1919, and the Second Schedule thereto, had to be prepared and certi-
fied by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and deposited with the Rolls of Parliament,
and His Majesty's printer printed, in accordance with the copy so certified, copies
of the Government of India Act, 1915, that had to be printed after the passing of
the Government of India Act, 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. 5. c. 101). The Government
of India Act, 1915, as so amended, would be cited as "The Government of India
Act See Section 45 of the Government of India Act, 1919. See also Section 135 of
The Government of India Act. It will be noted that this mode of correct citation of The
Government of India Act is often lost sight of. For a confusion of the citations of the
amending Act of 1919 and the resultant The Government of India Act see D. Basu's
Works on Indian Constitution, his Commentary on the Constitution of India , 4th ed., 1961,
Vol. 1, page 5, for Example.
102. See The Government of India Act, Calcutta, Government of India, Central
Publication Branch, 1924, Introductory Note .
103. Under Section 288 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5 & 1
Edw. 8 c. 2), the Chief Commissioner's Province of Aden ceased to be a part of British
India. In 1963, it became a part of the Federation of South Arabia.
104. The resultant was the emergence of two Acts, namely, 26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw.
8, c. 2 (cited as the Government of India Act, 1935) and 26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw. 8, c. 3
(cited as the Government of Burma Act, 1935) ; see Section 1 of 26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw.
8.C. 1.
105. 2 August, 1935.
see Section 321, ibid. The Government of India Act, that is, the
Government of India Act of 1915 as amended in 1916 and 1919, was
repealed. The preamble of the earlier Government of India Act, 1919,
was however saved.
Two new Provinces of Sind and Orissa were created under Sec-
tion 289 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5 & 1
Edw. 8, c. 2). Sind was separated from the Presidency of Bombay and
formed a Governor's Province to be known as the Province of Sind.
Orissa was separated from the Province of Bihar and Orissa. Certain
areas were separated from the Presidency of Madras and Central
Provinces respectively. Orissa and other areas, so separated, together
formed a Governor's Province to be known as the Province of Orissa.
The Province known as Bihar and Orissa became known as the Pro-
vince of Bihar. An Order in Council made under Section 289 of the
Act defined the boundaries of the Provinces of Sind and Orissa res-
pectively.
106. For the proceedings at the inaugural sitting, of the Federal Court in the
Princes' Chamber, New Delhi, on December 6th, 1937, see Federal Court Reports
[1939] F.C.R., 1-12.
107. Though not relevant under this head reference may herein be made to the
Indian Independence Pakistan Courts (Pending Proceedings) Act, 1952 (Act IX of
1952). This was an Act passed to render ineffective certain decrees and orders passed
by Courts in Pakistan against a Government in India and to provide alternative
remedy to persons who had secured such decrees or orders. The Indian Independence
Pakistan Courts (Pending Proceedings) Ordinance, 1951 '^Ordinance VI of 1951) was
repealed.
108. The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of India took place in the
Constitution Hall, New Delhi, on Monday, the 9th December, 1946, at Eleven of
the Clock. See, Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Report, Vol. 1.
109. For the Resolution, see Constituent Assembly Debates, Vols. I-III,page 303.
The final consideration, that is, the Third Reading, of the Draft
Constitution Bill began on 14 November, 1949. This Third Reading
involved a consideration of the Report of the Drafting Committee to-
gether with the amendments made by the Drafting Committee and
other amendments. The Constitution as settled by the Constituent
Assembly was passed by it on 26 November, 1949.114 The President of
the Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, then formally signed the Bill
which became an Act, by way of its authentication so that it might get
authority and come into force immediately.115
Some of the articles of the Constitution came into force, as seen
before, on the 26th day of November, 1 949, and the others on the 26th
day of January, 1950. Under the Constitution, India, that is, Bharat,
is a sovereign democratic republic.116
The Amendments to the Constitution of India
The Territorial Councils Act, 1956 . - This Act was passed on 30 Decem-
ber, 1956, with effect from 1 January, 1957, to provide for the establish-
ment of Territorial Councils in the Union Territories of Himachal
Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura.
The Naga Hills - Tuensang Area Act , 1957. - This Act was passed on
29 November, 1957, to provide for the formation of the Naga Hills-
Tuensang Area of Assam as an administrative unit within the State of
Assam.
The Geneva Conventions Act , 1960. - This Act was passed on 12 March,
1960, to give effect to certain international Conventions done at
Geneva on the twelfth day of August, 1949, to which India is a party,
and for purposes connected therewith.
The Acquired Territories {Merger) Act9 1960. - This Act was passed on
28 December, 1960, to provide for the merger into the States;of Assam,
Punjab and West Bengal of certain territories acquired in pursuance of
the agreements entered into between the Governments of India and
Pakistan and for matters connected therewith.
The D adra and Nagar Haveli Act , 1961. - This was passed on
2 September, 1961, to make provision for the representation of the
Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli in Parliament and for
the administration of that Union Territory and for matters connected
therewith. The Act came into force retrospectively on the 11th day
of August, 1961.
The Goa, Daman and Diu {Administration) Act9 1962. - This Act was
passed on 27 March, 1962, with retrospective effect from 5 March,
1962, to provide for the administration of the Union Territory of Goa,
Daman and Diu and for matters connected therewith. See also the
Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962.
The State of Nagaland Act , 1962. - This Act was passed on 4 Septem-
ber, 1962, for the formation of the State of Nagaland and for matters
connected therewith. See also the Constitution (Thirteenth Amend-
ment) Act, 1962, and the Naga Hills - Tuensang Area Act, 1957.